The sky IS falling!  This Lamont victory is bad, really bad.  Sure, it's a feel good payback for a turncoat and likely will put a good man, a good Democrat, in the Senate.  But look at what the MSM is saying.  And look at what the RNC is saying.

THE SAME THING!  In a nutshell: Lamont's victory means the LIBERAL, ANTI-WAR (therefore weak on terrorism) wing has taken back the Democratic party. 

This can only send pro-military, security Republicans running back to their base.

It gets worse - Jim Webb has been against the Iraq War from the beginning and, for better or worse, this has been the single most publicized aspect of his run to date.  Now, given the victory of that anti-war northeast liberal, how hard is it going to be for George Allen to use his noose to hang Webb by the "weak-liberal" label?  And again, those Republicans, who were beginning to have doubts about Allen and starting to come to grips with the fact that they might vote Democratic, suddenly panic and return to their comfort food.

Look government should have nothing to do with "protecting" marriage.  If your church or whatever wants to say that gays shouldn’t marry fine, I don't agree with that but what can you do?  But just because some of the population feel uncomfortable about gay marriage doesn’t give the government the power to take away the rights of gay people.  Fifty years ago people where making arguments that marriage had to be protected from blacks and whites from marrying, if you think your argument is valid against gay marriage then you are saying that it was ok to make interracial marriage illegal fifty years ago.

Sorry about the rant, this was off topic but I couldn't let this go.

I think that the Lamont victory will have a negligible impact on the senate race here in VA simply because most Virginians won't really care what happens in CT.

You obviously haven't even read the amendment, hrconservative.  Or perhaps you've got a conveniently clouded memory.  The "amendment" is so vague it can strip rights of unmarried individuals to enter into contracts or leases.  It's so vague in fact that it could be broadly applied to exclude college students renting a house together, or two sisters from sharing a house.  But even if it only applied to gays, it's just plain wrong.  The extent to which you try to ride the hate horse is appalling.  The law is so vaguely worded that the authors know it will be overturned.  They are only doing it to stir up hate, and the bigot vote, as they hoof their way to mad cowboy disease.

These same "concerns" were thrown at the amendment in Ohio. Do a search of webpages and blogs before 2004, you see will see all sorts of things. After 2004, silence. Nothing. What else can you point to in Ohio besides domestic violence which does not apply in Virginia because of Virginia's different meaning of household.

Why did we hear these same things in Ohio, but it never happened. No contracts being disallowed, like we heard would happen in Ohio, no hospital visitation rights being denied, like we heard would  happen on Ohio, no powers of attorney being denied, like we heard in Ohio. Explain. Explain why these same arguments have been used in EVERY state where an amendment has been passed, but nothing happened.

You are going to have to do more than parrot liberal talking points about the amendment to convince people that the amendment will do more than define marriage as between one man and one woman. History proves your wrong.

...with the first sentence?  All the amendment had to say was "marriage is hereby defined as between one man and one woman."  Period.  But nooooo....the "small government conservatives" couldn't just stop there.  Nope, they had to add all this extraneous crap that throws other legal contracts into question, that desecrates George Mason's revolutionary declaration of rights, etc.  Great work, guys!

1. Rights of unmarried couples will be taken away.

2. Unless you're flashing a diploma from Chapel Hill, you have about as much reason to be a Tar Heel as George Allen does to be a Confederate

I'm from North Carolina

My Dad's from Iowa, but he doesn't run around with his Hawkeyes gear on. If you're going to be a fan, refer to the Tar Heels as 'they', not 'we'.

Also you should probably re-examine your priorities for supporting such a liberal institution.

See, this re-ignites another argument on this site.

You can't decide where you shop and who you root for based on politics. It's no way to live your life

That was a joke; I have many conservative friends who fashionably root for UNC, which I find funny because Chapel Hill is somewhere to the left of Dennis Kucinich. I consider them as I do others to be posers who do not know what it's like to live and die by the Duke-UNC game, which you probably have an idea of since you're from NC.

then the amendment is redundant.  No one is suggesting that we have an amendment about how to respond to stop signs or the thousands upon thousands of other laws around.  This does indeed support the bigotry charge.

Gays in Iraq are being systematically executed right now.  In July 60 corpses per day were taken to the morgue in Baghdad alone.  Who knows how many because they were gay, or perhaps straight and effeminate? 

Execution of gays is apparently legal in Iraq as honor killing.  And Iran. And it starts with codifying discrimination.  Codifying something that *doesn't change a thing* for straight people.

This is a distraction from the real issues of this election.  A bigoted distraction playing upon negative emotions.  The kind of emotions that turns brother against brother. It's part of a bigger picture going into every election, but it is much more damaging that a bunch of chatter about hoardes of radicals who want to take in God we trust off of currency.

This was not a one issue/anti-war only race...

What the MSM and the entrenched power don't want you to realize is this was an anti-status quo/incumbent clarion call and it has (or should have) any incumbent who is not significantly above 50% RIGHT NOW shaking in their boots (cowboy boots in our case).

Lamont's victory is great news for Webb and Tester and all candidates who are for change. There is a tidal wave building.

We need to redouble our efforts in getting our families, friends, neighbors, and anyone else we meet to know Jim Webb (and Judy Feder, Andy Hurst, Al Weed, etc).

BE VISIBLE PEOPLE!!!

I think it would be very bad if Lieberman and his corporate agenda had won.  The media would be slaying progressive candidates as unwinnable.  Instead the energy is moving for progressives. 

The spoiled right winged media will not have a kind word to say.  They are pissed.  Let them bite.  Meanwhile we will keep on moving. 

This win has given hope to far more people than it has pissed off.  People all across the country are being stimulated by the great victory.  It is safe to have an opposing opinion. Democracy in action.

 

This post seems to me to be a mixture of Progressive arrogance and Progressive inferiority complex.

One thing you can say for Lamont is that he got his sound bites together. And who the f-k cares what they call Lamont supporters? Those people (Lamont critics) got us where we are and they are assholes. If progressives start worrying about what the main stream media is saying they might as well go away and vote Republican. Its really funny that the media are trying the old "Librul" label. That tells you they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. They seem to be trying to use their old tricks over and over, but a lot of people who used to be taken in are waking up.

This is the false paradigm at work. Libruls against the moral people, right? The fact is when I listened to the results on CSPAN radio last night, about a third of the Republicans who called in sounded just like Progressives and ripped the Bush administration and Lieberman for supporting Bush. It pays to pay attention to these things. Disaffection with the administration crosses party lines. The old Librul/good guys paradigm just doesn't work, but they will keep trying it cause they are dumb. Its a good thing they are dumb because they are a lot richer and better organized than the Progressives.

I hope they (the mainstream media) all have a nice dinner of crow come November.

Opposition to the mess in the Iraq Occupation has nothing to do with being soft on fighting terrorism. QUITE THE OPPOSITE!

Read this on KOS:

http://www.dailykos....

Joe Scarborough, conservative host and former congressman (class of 1994), sent me this email (which I got permission to print):

The conventional wisdom for tonight's Connecticut primary seems to be that a Joe Leiberman loss will yank the Democratic Party so far left as to make other Democratic candidates unelectable this fall. The logic is laughable and similar to what I heard from Republican leaders in 1994.

That was the election year when the most conservative wing of the GOP took over the party and swept into power in the US Congress. None would have predicted that outcome just two years earlier.

George Bush's loss to Bill Clinton in 1992 had put Republican operatives and strategists in a panic. They feared that Bush had been beaten like a drum because radical conservatives like Pat Buchanan, Phyllis Shaffley and Pat Robertson had hijacked the GOP Convention. So while Bill Clinton spent the next two years moving left, the Republican National Committee desperately sought moderate candidates that would talk, walk and vote like, say, Joe Lieberman. The goal was to blur all differences between Republicans and Democrats.

Because of that logic, I spent most of 1994 fighting Republican bureaucrats on the local, state and federal level who did everything in their power to elect my very moderate opponent in the GOP primary. A week before the primary, the Republican Congressional Committee campaign director let me know that I might as well give up. 1994 would be the year of the Moderate.

Yeah, right.

that there is a potential danger here.  The headline being thrown around by the MSM is "anti-war".  It's being echoed by the RNC.  Which is sure to be a best seller on right-wing radio.

It doesn't matter what the reality is.  It doesn't matter what's right or wrong.

What matters, and could be problem, is that the MSM says it, the RNC reinforces it, and the right-wing radio double reinforces it.  And that's a hard message to dislodge from people who have voted Republican for a long time.

If the has come across as somewhat negative about Lamont, that was not the intent.  It was a good victory for Connecticut and the Democratic party and I'm glad he won.

...and I see no events on the horizon that will lessen that in the next three months.

From the Boston Globe today:

The telephone survey, which had an error margin of 3 percentage points, showed 61 percent believed at least some U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2006.

Voter anger over the Iraq war, plagued by insurgent and sectarian violence with a daily civilian death toll, was cited in the Connecticut Democratic primary defeat Tuesday of U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who strongly backed President George W. Bush's war effort.

poll break out for Virginia?  While national numbers clearly indicate a disapproval of the war, how do Virginians feel?

I'm pretty sure the anti-war message will work well here  - and it won't be seen as a northeast liberal thing.  But it'd be good to see some poll numbers to back that up.

This is no different than what has been going on since Bush took office. You don't expect them (the media and right wing talk shows)to tell the truth do you? Wake up to the fascist state.

Get serious, do you really expect right wing radio to give us credit? It's hard to believe any Progressive worth his or her salt would worry about such a thing.

There's got to be ways to get more coverage in MSM somehow.

We buy crap from their sponsors-- appealing to them might have impact, but would probably take forever.

If they got thousands of complaints about their lousy coverage, would they pay any attention? Probably not, since the complaints just verify that people are watching.

I have provided the cached article so it can be seen easier-18 years ago, Lieberman asked in a public debate why the state should vote for "an 18 year incumbant who has lost touch with the people."

Oh, ok.  Funny how things change, huh?

...you rock (as always)...

is less relevant so long as we keep the microscope on Allen.  This election is about Allen's rubber stamp, not a progressive victory in Connecticut.  To the extent that the Connecticut primary has any effect, it will be small.  Webb is a sensible centrist in a moderate state.  Lamont was a liberal in a liberal state.

If we're truly concerned about it, I think the less we talk about Lamont on sites like this, the better.  The Virginia netroots aren't the same as the national netroots.  Different people, different candidates, different agenda. 

I think the biggest challenge for the netroots is casting the blogosphere as the decentralized paradigm that it is, rather than as a united front - which is what the establishment on all sides seems to think.  Its as varied as the grassroots activists around the country.

So never mind Lamont.  I'm much more interested in how we neutralize McCain and Giuliani's campaign visits in support of Allen.  He could really shore up moderate support that way. 

We must not allow the opposition to define the terms.  We need to call them every time they try to stick a simplistic label on us.  Every general who wants to win battles tries first to pick the ground on which he will fight to maximize the strategic factors for his side.  We need to hammer home the point that the war in Iraq has LESSENED our ability to fight global terrorism, not enhanced it.  It is steadily draining our national treasury and guess what, now we don't  have enough money to secure our borders  or check the cargo that comes through our ports! How's that helping keep us safe from terrorists? And our political capital that measures our influence around the world?  We're pretty much spent out there too, thanks to Bush's arrogant cowboy diplomacy.  We are in a WEAKER position now vis a vis the global war on terror than we were when the invasion began.  Jim Webb is right that the war was a bad strategic blunder.  Knee jerk reactions that say we must support the troops miss the point.  One important responsibility we have to our brave troops is not to spend their lives recklessly, uselessly and to no avail.  That represents REAL support for the troops.

Silver Fox

Isn't it quite possible that Lamont's victory elevates Iraaq as an issue on which Jim Webb can indeed make considerable advances among voters? With Lamont's victory he will gain additional media coverage joining the national debate. His comments will broadcast into Virginia homes and written of in papers and magazines read by VA voters. I think that there's a "critical mass" of which Lamont and Webb are both a part here.

Whatever one may wish to make of Lamont's positions or how to (mis)characterise him in the press in general, I sincerely hope that Jim Webb will continue to focus on the utter failure of U.S. policy and U.S. policy leadership (Bush and Allen) in Iraq.

For example, look at Requiem for Baghdad Isn't the deteriorating situation in Iraq a tremendously potent example of Webb's keen powers of analysis and policy expertise?

Far from gloating, Allen, Bush and their handlers should be very afraid of Jim Webb (and Lamont). I would urge Lamont and Webb to focus on the incompetence and ineptitude of Allen and Bush evident in Iraq -- rather than the immorality of the war. This hits Bush and his allies (Allen, et al) where they live -- in their claims to be more "competent" and "capable".

In the run-up to the 2000 election, Lieberman sided with the tech industry on lifting the cap on H1-B visas, extending the moratorium on Internet taxes, extending the research and development tax credit, and promoting antispam legislation. But his views on censorship--mandating V-chips, labeling videos, rating videogames--were more controversial, and Lieberman's campaign was caught spamming earlier this year. (source)

Another chump bites the dust!

You're quite correct to make these points. They are important.

It's part of the identity crisis felt by many Democrats. How can elected Democrats vote the corporate agenda and still claim to support "democratic values"? Crushing the middle class and enabling greater concentrations of wealth and power among a narrower slice of society does not appear to be terribly "democratic".

Writing in 2004, outsourcing and H-1b critic Dr. Norman Matloff wrote about Lieberman

From: Norm Matloff [mailto:matloff@cs.uc...]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:54 PM
Subject: Sen. Lieberman on offshoring and H-1B

To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter

A number of people have mentioned a white paper on offshoring by Sen. Joseph Liberman, at
  http://www.lieberman... [no longer available]

Clearly Lieberman is just one more person who is putting forth the unofficial Democratic Party line--Kerry, Clark, Dean, and most notably Hillary Clinton--which SOUNDS sympathetic to workers but IN REALITY consists only of a few minor changes which have minor impacts.  It is no accident that Lieberman uses the word "tweak" for H-1B; he and the Democrats want to only "tweak" the entire system, to make it look like they've done something when they've actually done nothing.  Kerry, for all his "Benedict Arnolds who offshore" bluster, has said he supports offshoring and his campaign officials have admitted that his "reforms" would have very little impact on the problem.

As with the others, Lieberman says we should invest more money in education and research.  He says that the offshoring is going to countries that are making such investments--as if that is the reason they offshore.  The real reason U.S. firms offshore is that these firms seek cheap labor, not "investment in research."  (The amount of research done in India and China is minuscule.) Lieberman cites Taiwan as a country making such "investments," yet basically NONE of the offshoring is going to Taiwan.  Duh!

The U.S. can "invest" until the cows come home and still not change a thing.  As Lieberman himself points out in his white paper, unemployment among college graduates is growing at double the rate for high school graduates.  So much for the value of investment in education!

Lieberman also drags out the tired statistic that China is graduating more engineers than we are.  First of all, that is misleading.  The U.S.
has the second-highest per-capita number of engineers in the world, after Israel (Michael Hiltzik, Israel's High Tech Shifts Into High Gear, Los Angeles Times, August 13, 2000), and most of China's engineers are not doing much engineering. 

But the interesting part is that Lieberman concludes that this means that China has more potential for innovation, a new spin on this statistic that I hadn't seen before.  It's curious how Lieberman thinks that graduating more engineers in the U.S. will lead to more innovation--since U.S. firms won't give American jobs in which they can innovate.  Large numbers of U.S. programmers and engineers are seeing their education going to waste, as they can't get tech jobs.  Lieberman thinks we should produce even more programmers and engineers, so that even more of them can have their education go to waste?

Lieberman also follows the tried-and-true path of saying that not enough U.S. students pursue graduate degrees.  Of course, that again outrageously ignores the tens of thousands of American programmers and engineers who have graduate degrees and yet are unemployed or underemployed (i.e.  working in non-tech jobs such as driving a school bus).  See my posting on the industry lobbyists' graduate degree propaganda at http://heather.cs.uc...)

Sadly, Lieberman also can't resist saying that Indian programmers are better, another favorite claim of the industry lobbyists.  See my posting on this at http://heather.cs.uc...

As with other apologists for offshoring, a lot of Lieberman's proposals involved cushioning the blow of offshoring, e.g. requiring that employers give U.S. workers advance notice.  This is nothing more than a short-term palliative, not a long-term solution, and thus should have been mentioned only as an afterthought, rather than a featured point as Lieberman did.

Lieberman praises H-1B, claiming that it played a key role in U.S.
technological leadership.  He relegates abuses as being exceptions.
He's totally off base here.  Almost none of the hiring of tech H-1Bs in the 13-year history of the H-1B program has been justified; the overriding consideration in almost all hires of tech H-1Bs has been cheap labor (either Type I or Type II in my classification scheme).
See my law journal article on this, at

  http://heather.cs.uc...

For those readers who still might hold on to a belief that Lieberman cares about American programmers and engineers, here is what he wrote in a letter to the U.S. India Political Action Committee earlier this
year:

"I also oppose any efforts to eliminate or diminish the H1-B visa program.  Why do we want to limit or otherwise handicap a community that has made such significant and important contributions to this country? It is counter-intuitive and counter-productive."

As a long-time Democrat myself, let me state it bluntly:  The Democrats are not any more sympathetic to American programmers and engineers than are the Republicans.  The only difference between the parties is that the Democrats pretend to be sympathetic while the Republicans are openly hostile.  BOTH parties are hopelessly in league with their corporate campaign contributors.

In Jim Webb, I believe that, at last, American IT workers have found someone who really cares...

If you're worried do something. If you don't like the right wing echo chamber why aren't you working on creating a Progressive echo chamber? Getting out our message is a way of fighting, yet many Progressives still think it is adequate merely to be right.

If you are worried about the right wing talk show hosts, you are misdirecting your concern. Watch your back, the DLCers will be (and are)after us. The truth is that certains factions of the Democratic Party HATE the netroots. I would venture to say these people are what we really need to worried about if we worry about anything.

If you listen carefully you will find a lot of so-called Democrats joining in the chorus about Howard Dean, Jim Dean, and their "crazies".

No fence walking for Webb. He is what he is and shouldn't worry about all these little do-dad things. That's what got the dems in trouble in the first place. He should just tell like it is and don't try to please all people all the time. We've seen enough of that kind of stuff from Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Webb's got nothing to be ashamed of--He should just be himself....

The real "anti-war" people are the republican Cabal of Cowards the Bush, Cheney, Allen, Rove, ect. draft avoiders. They are against war for them and their family members.
Traditional Dems have always been pro America and anti-stupid conflict that benifits war profiteers. There are a lot of "liberals" lying in Arlington graves.
The 1970s peace movement idea that all conflict is bad is a failed notion must be avoided. A notion that Allen apparently agreeed with given his failure to serve.
Is there any doubt in anyones mind that given a real threat to the security of this country that Webb and like minded Dems would answer a call to arms? There is certainly doubt about the Republican Cabal of Cowards.
The simple fact that they fail to encougage military service speaks volumes. Instead they raise the age of elinstment making it possible for a grandfather to be blown up with his grandson.
It is imperative that Allen be painted as the war whimp and self serving professional pol that he truly is. Where is Allen's history of sacrafice and commitment to this country?
This war is appalling and should be stopped, but to let the Republican cowards grab this issue of patriotism and beat us over the head with it is absurd. A patriot, wants what is best for his country, voting for your own pay raise does not seem to be a patriotic act. Joining the Marines does.
The Lamont victory does not mean that the party has to return to the McGovern one issue peace party, in fact that must be avoided it is a political disaster. Webb owns the war issue as only he, not Allen can.
This country did not gain its freedom throwing footballs at the Redcoats.

 

on Kos.

I'd give you props...that was some awesome work!