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

when connecticut voters go to the polls on tuesday and choose between ned lamont and joe lieberman, it’s hard to predict what will happen next. it’s very possible that lieberman will lose to lamont, but even though this may happen, i don’t think that this will determine the national mood of the country. there are several reasons why i believe this. the first reason is that lieberman’s campaign staff is almost as incompetent as john kerry’s was during his race for the presidency (and that’s really saying something). it’s safe to say they have made a couple serious mistakes, the most glaring of which was the debate advice they gave him. attack your opponent if you see a weakness. seize the opportunity to emphasize your experience and qualifications. all that makes sense, but it’s not necessary to be condescending, rude, or arrogant as you sell yourself to the viewers and the audience. if the viewers saw it the way i did, i can’t imagine that lieberman gained anything by acting like that. it only plays into that out-of-touch washington insider stereotype that his detractors are trying to suggest.

the second reason is that lieberman has been unable to sell the rest of his liberal resume and his commitment to most causes beloved by those at daily kos and huffington post. even daily kos’ second favorite democrat, bill clinton, can’t seem to convince the locals that joe lieberman is the right man to represent their interests in washington, dc. lieberman has a serious image problem and there’s no easy way to fix that.

then again, it’s not about joe lieberman. it’s not even about what a great guy lamont is. the netroots are using ned lamont. it’s a way to cast a protest vote against someone they can’t get rid of just yet…george w. bush. it’s more than iraq. these people want to send the message that agreeing with george w. bush on anything, no matter how small the issue may be, is unacceptable, and that such behavior should be punished. i don’t believe that lieberman opponents would have any serious objection to most of his voting record, but the debate over the war in iraq has become so vicious that there’s bound to be a few political casualties along the way.

the voters have a right to make up their own minds whether lieberman or lamont could best represent them. both of them are too liberal for me, but not too much for connecticut. what a lamont victory would lead to is not some kind of political tidal wave where all the iraq war supporters are drummed out of congress, but a deep ideological struggle between the netroots crowd and the DLC for control of the party’s message. that could be dangerous for them. i can understand why the centrist dems are nervous about this race, because while a lamont win may not have any national implications, it still could cause some ideological chaos within the ranks. if that chaos splits up the democratic party, it will hurt them in november.

tags: joe lieberman, democrats, ned lamont

if the voters of connecticut really want a change from the senator they have now, then they would have to vote for…a republican. lamont is only different because he opposes the war in iraq. while it’s true that lamont can claim outsider status, and that he is not tied to any special interest groups, on policy issues there’s not many areas where lieberman and lamont disagree. consider this sampling of groups that lieberman has supported (according to his voting record): planned parenthood, naral, aclu, nea, now, uaw, afl-cio, all the big ones. these groups don’t give endorsements out lightly, but lieberman’s record shows that he deserves those endorsements.

this may come as a shock to conservatives…but joe lieberman is not one of us, hannity’s endorsement not withstanding.

from california conservative:

Lieberman has voted either outright against every Republican initiative or, as in the case of Soc. Security reform, has hedged his bet but still on the negative side of the issue. Only with Iraq policies has Lieberman voiced his agreement with Republican ideas.

In measuring Lieberman’s record, the American Conservative Union has given him a rating of “0? for calendar year 2004, only an “8? in 2005, and a low “17? for his lifetime in Congress based on his votes in the Senate. (By contrast, much as my Conservative friends may not like him, McCain’s ACU rating is 72, 80 and 83 respectively.)

He voted against every Bush tax cut, voted against Justice Alito’s Supreme Court appointment, opposes traditional marriage laws, is against drilling for oil in Alaska, is for partial-birth abortion, and supports some of the absurd restrictions as outlined in the Kyoto Protocols. And this is just for starters.

Lieberman is not a “conservative” Democrat. It’s just that simple.

there are several objections to re-electing joe lieberman, and none of them are very convincing. the main objection to lieberman is not that he is too conservative, it’s that he’s not liberal enough. he doesn’t oppose bush enough for the liberal netroots. he supports the war in iraq…although he’s backed off somewhat from what he has said/written previously. there is also the unpardonable sin of condemning clinton’s actions during monicagate(which the former president has somehow forgiven him for doing).

i’m not going to predict what’s going to happen next, because anything could happen when the voters of connecticut ultimately decide this. it sure does seem that lieberman isn’t handling this challenge all that well. i watched some of the debate a few weeks ago, and even though lamont may not have had the best answers, this time it didn’t matter.

i don’t know what joe’s advisors have been telling him…but looking angry and defensive doesn’t work for him. he looked like some kind of angry dad, instead of someone who was confident about his record and willing to defend the positions he has taken. it was a side of lieberman that i certainly didn’t expect to see, and it was an ugly display. ned lamont may not have won the debate, but i don’t think lieberman helped his own case either.

there is no reason other than iraq that connecticut conservatives (especially republican conservatives) should give lieberman their vote. in my view, that single issue is still not enough to overlook his entire career record. he should be liberal enough for the rest of the state. it all depends on how much the netroots is willing to sacrifice to make an example out of joe lieberman.

tags: joe lieberman, ned lamont, connecticut, conservatives