congratulations to the nutroots and to their chosen one, howard dean…i mean ned lamont. it’s not the blowout they wanted, but it was a lamont victory. now many in the democratic leadership are lining up behind connecticut’s new flavor of the month. they are using ned just like their left-wing supporters did. if anyone thinks that a lamont victory in november would change the way the democrats vote on iraq withdrawal, think again. unless they get the majority back in congress, it’s not gonna happen. look at how the democrats react to similar proposals by kerry, kucinich, and russ feingold. the democrats can talk all they want to about withdrawing troops from iraq, but until they actually vote to do it, that’s all it is.
it was interesting to watch lieberman’s reaction to his loss – like it was merely a temporary setback to his victory in november. that’s far from a sure thing. if the majority of the democratic leadership support lamont, then it will be rather lonely out there on the campaign trail. when you have rahm emmanuel not only supporting lamont, but calling lieberman bush’s “love child”…that’s not a good sign. there’s also no guarantee that the independents and moderate republicans will support lieberman in a three-way race, regardless of what the polling may indicate. i’m not sure how lieberman keeps the support he already has AND gains votes after losing the primary.
on the other hand, lamont didn’t give a normal victory speech. he sounded like howard dean when dean was giving the “scream” speech. there was nothing conventional about what lamont said. he tossed out plenty of red meat to the fierce partisans in the crowd, and that was about 90% of the speech. there was nothing gracious about what he said. there was no sign of a positive agenda. if lieberman could be called a sore loser, then it’s equally true that lamont was a poor winner. is this kind of message the one that the democrats want to promote as their “new direction for america”?
all i have to say is: be careful what you wish for.
tags: joe lieberman, democrats, ned lamont
Be careful indeed.
I’ve been waiting for your update of the results and you don’t disappoint 🙂
I’m still not convinced that this is totally about Iraq, however. But maybe it is. I think it’s more about Bush’s unpopularity than anything. Bush has an approval rating somewhere between 35-38 percent amongst the nation. With Democrats it has to be less than 5 percent. I think that’s what we witnessed yesterday in Conn.
I think Lieberman is finished. I don’t see how he can possibly pull off a November win. I agree with you totally on that.
Being merely a primary race, the Dems only accomplish holding onto a seat in the next session and not actually picking up any ground. Unless, like you say, an Iraq vote comes to the senate and then yes, the Dems pickup an extra vote in favor of leaving Iraq. Nothing else is going to change.
If only the Dems could put this much energy into beating Republicans then maybe we would have a new direction for America. I doubt it though. Dems are just much better at running campaigns against themselves than against Karl Rove.
It’s not entirely about Iraq. But Iraq is what drove the nutroots to support Ned Lamont. They have other disagreements with Lieberman, but these were not a big deal until now. If you are right that this is about Bush’s unpopularity, and I suspect that you are, then the Republicans have a serious problem going into November. Will the Democrats take advantage of it? Who knows.
What did you think of Lamont’s speech or of what Rahm Emmanuel said about Lieberman? With friends like these…you know the rest. The netroots did all they could to sabotage their guy (the blackface stunt, for example), but he still won. That’s scary.
The Democrats can’t exist as a unified party because there are so many different groups trying to control it. Forget George Bush and Karl Rove…the worst enemy the Democrats have is themselves.
The netroots have disagreements with a lot of Dems, including me. But outside of New England I’m not sure they (netroots) are strong enough or organized enough to do much. Unless maybe in California. So my posit is that yesterday’s liberal fringe victory won’t have much effect on the nation as a whole. If anything, this event does demonstrate that the most effective, organzied part of the Democratic Party is the left wing. I know, scares me too.
The Republicans do have serious problems going into November. The season couldn’t be any more ripe for a change in government than it has in the last 70 years. To answer your question if the Dems will take advantage of it, I highly doubt they will.
I didn’t see Lamont’s speech or Rahm’s comment about Lieberman. One thing though is that I personally know Rahm and will be seeing him next week in Chicago and the guy is usually dead on with his analysis.
Bush’s unpopularity will be a factor, and it sure does seem like the netroots are more effective in selling that theme right now. I agree that the netroots effect won’t work the same way in other states. I forget who said this yesterday but it makes sense – that totally red states may not suffer that much damage from this, but the swing states could be a problem for Republicans.
If you liked Howard Dean’s scream speech, then you will love Lamont’s speech. 😛 I think that most of what Rahm said was gracious and along the lines of “thank you for the years of service” (I’m paraphrasing here). But I think the part about Lieberman being Bush’s love child was a cheap shot. I was going to write that I hope that he will figure out a good plan to counter the Republicans. But that would probably be a lie. 😛
What other Democratic endorsements do you expect Lamont to get? He’s already got Hillary, Bayh, Edwards, and a few others.
I’d be willing to bet Lamont will pretty much get every Democratic endorsement. And I’m not sure he’ll need any of them either. He did pretty well against a well-funded three term incumbent who had the most popular former Democratic president since FDR campaigning for him.
What the Dems need to be careful about is making sure Rove doesn’t back Lieberman thus officially making him a spoiler, which would only cause the Republicans to actually pick up a senate seat. This all could backfire really quick on the Dems.
The last thing the Dems need to be doing is spending money on a general election in one of the most liberal states in the union when they need to be so many other places.
At best the Dems were going to pick up two senate seats. A safe bet would be one seat. But if Lieberman becomes a Rove tool then picking up one seat will be almost impossible.
To me, the worst thing that could happen is if Lieberman and Lamont split votes causing the Republican gambling addict to become a U.S. Senator. Schlesinger belongs in rehab or prison, not in the upper chamber of congress. Do the Republicans really want another criminal in their ranks?
I think you’re right that Lamont won’t need all those endorsements. Lieberman has been weakened enough that he’s no longer a serious threat.
If Karl Rove can make a winner out of Schlesinger, then he really is the evil genius that he is rumored to be. I would rather Karl Rove spend his energy on finding someone to replace Schlesinger than running Lieberman’s indy bid.
Where would those two Dem pickups be? How many seats would they need to take back the Senate?
There ARE Dem crooks too, you know…they just haven’t gotten caught yet. 😛
I think Rove will do whatever it takes to tie up the Dems in a liberal state. If I were Rove that’s what I would do. It would be a genius plan if he could pull it off. Replacing Schlesinger might not be so easy, screwing with the Dems in their own back yard would be much easier 🙂
The two senate seats the Dems stand the best chance of picking up are PA and TN. Santorum trails by double digits and Ford in TN is slightly ahead in that race. The safest pickup is Santorum, however.
To take back the senate the Dems need to pickup six seats. An impossible task. If they pickup two, then that would be remarkable. The Democrats stand a much better chance of taking back the house rather than the senate.
Of course there are Dem crooks and I apologize for making that statement sound so harsh. It wasn’t meant to be.
But– you know I gotta throw this in– currently there are 15 Republicans either indicted, pled guilty or already convicted with Bob Ney, Abramoff and Duke investigations still ongoing. On the Democrat side only one has pled guilty to a felony. That’s quite a gap.
Of course, one could argue that the Democrats just haven’t gotten caught yet, and that’s a good argument to make; but I’m also sure that if I counted further I could increase the list of 15 Republicans closer to 30.
I could only imagine what Tony Snow and Dick Cheney would be saying if 15 Democrats were facing prison time…the MSM would be all over that.
And now I’m sure you’re going to lay into me for this one.. 🙂
Rove knows what he’s doing most of the time. He doesn’t need my advice. Whatever he can do to mess with the Dems is fine with me.
Of course Ford’s going to win. It’s my understanding that he’s getting great strategy advice. 🙂 Santorum’s in trouble, no doubt about it. I don’t know that even Karl Rove can save him.
I’m reminded of something you wrote to one of my previous posts about the “culture of corruption”. You wrote that if the Democrats were offered money, they would take it. It’s probably more accurate to suggest that the reason more Republicans are in trouble right now is because they are the party in power. It makes more sense to bribe people who could actually influence policy in your direction. At least the Republicans are smart enough not to hide the money in the freezer. 😛
You are NOT allowed to rip Tony Snow on this blog. 🙂 Dick Cheney has guns…he can take care of himself.
hahhahaha, you crack me up.
Rove is the best there is, no doubt about that.
Ford has a very good opponent. The mayor of Chattanooga is the Republican candidate and the race will be very tight. I hope Ford wins, for my benefit if nothing else 😉
I still agree with myself in that if the Dems were offered money they would take it; take it and never think twice about it. But we do have to remember that the Dems were in power for forty years and never was there so many investigations, indictments and corruption charges as have been for the Repubs of the last 10 years and more specifically since 2002 when they took absolute power of both branches of government and all three branches since 2005.
Dick Cheney has guns but he’s a horrible shot. I bet I have more guns than him, well, wait, no I don’t. He’s a millionaire, I’m sure he has more.
Poor Tony Snow. He doesn’t appear to be liking his job all that much. It will get better with time. I bet he has to drink a lot just to sleep at night 🙂
It wouldn’t surprise me if you could prove what you just said, but I’m not sure you can. Maybe there was more going on than that “liberal” press didn’t tell us about. 😛 Isn’t Dem corruption one of the reasons why the Republicans got control back in the first place?
As far as Dick Cheney goes, maybe you are right that he’s a horrible shot. That’s what makes him so dangerous. 🙂
Tony will be ok…Helen Thomas, not so much.
It’s easy to prove. Currently there are around 15 Republicans who have been indicted, pled guilty or convicted and only one person with Democratic ties in the same circumstances. If we add the former Republican governor of Illinois who was convicted on a 44 count indictment in May (still awaiting sentencing) and his cronies who are currently serving prison terms into the mix, then I’m sure the number would reach 30.
I bet you could add the last 200 years of American government corruption and indictments combined and still not reach what the Repbulicans have accomplished in the last four years.
I don’t recall Dem corruption being the reason Newt Gingrich swept the Republicans back into power in ’94. I’m sure the unpopularity of Clinton and Democratic fatigue had a lot to do with it, but I don’t think any Democrats were going to prison like we can say about Republicans today.
Tony Snow is cool. I think he’s too good for a press secretary. There isn’t enough money in the world to make me do that job.
If we are just talking about current members of Congress, obviously you are correct. But that means Republican governors, etc, don’t count for the purpose of this discussion.
The part I didn’t think you could prove was the part where you suggested that the current crop of Republican corruption scandals was something unprecedented in all those years of Democratic rule. I’m not saying that you couldn’t be right, but I don’t believe that you are. 😛
I don’t remember much about 1994. That was a long time ago. I will have to look into past Democrat scandals and get back to you on that.
I agree totally about Tony Snow. But I am looking forward to the end of the Bush administration so that he will return to his radio show. It was a great show.
The Duke Cunningham corruption scandal is unprecedented. Nothing in 230 years of American history even comes close. Unless we want to go back to the Revolution and talk about Bendedict Arnold.
In 1994 I was a sophomore in high school and had three things on my mind. Sports, girls and sports. In that order as well 🙂 But I still don’t recall hearing about Democratic representatives going to prison, awaiting trial or running from indictments.
Let’s do that. What do you know about Benedict Arnold? 😛
I graduated high school in ’93, which seems to suggest that I am actually older than you are. My interests haven’t changed much. Writing, music, computer geekish stuff, watching sports, working on websites…that’s all the same stuff I still like today. I actually had a relatively fancy website back then that I designed myself. Today it’s almost impossible to do that with WP. The learning curve is rather steep. 🙁
As far as the other subject you mentioned, I spent most of my high school years liking guys who weren’t interested in me. But that’s the way it goes right? 🙂
There were websites back in high school?? I don’t think I had ever been on the internet until college. The high school I went to only had one computer in the entire school, so that probably explains why I know nothing about computers and all the internet stuff 🙁
But my interests haven’t changed much either, sports, girls and sports. I’m still easily predicted.
It does appear that you are older. I’m 28, but there are days when I feel like 40.
Well…liking computer stuff is sort of a genetic thing in our family. At least for my dad and myself. Mom is totally clueless about the subject. We have always been PC people rather than MAC people, although I have flirted with switching sides a few times. I won’t bore you with the long history of the computers I’ve had unless you want to know about it. 🙂
So it shouldn’t surprise you that I had a website back in high school. It was called Planet Spin and it consisted of some sports rants, music reviews, and a few political rants (and a really cool logo graphic). I guess I should thank Al Gore for making that whole internet thing possible, right? LOL.
I thought that you were married. Guess I was wrong about that. (If you are, you probably shouldn’t still be chasing girls… :P)
As far as the age thing, I’ve never felt older than about 26 or 27, except after a long day at work. 🙂
I think my entire family is clueless about computers. It’s interesting that you mention a switch over to MAC. I have myself been contemplating the same thing lately. I’ve only used a MAC once or twice, but was very impressed with it. Since I don’t do any design or graphics stuff, I’m not sure a MAC would make that much of a change in my life. But again, I do border on being computer illiterate.
Yes, Gore does deserve your thanks. Just think where you would be without that man.
Yep, I’m married. For three years now. I don’t do any chasing anymore. But girls still remain one of my interests. I am a healthy red-blooded male. What can I say? 🙂
My only reservation about Macs is thinking about how much software I would have to replace. (That, and I don’t really have the money for a brand new computer right now) I adore their widescreen LCD monitors. Why can’t they make PC monitors that look that good? 🙁
I trust you will understand if I’m not inclined to send Gore any thank you cards. Maybe if he would disappear from public view for awhile I would appreciate his wonderful contributions even more than I do now. But I doubt it.