Originally Posted By Darkbeer From today's Wall Street Journal's Political Diary >>The Face of the Lamont Left The defeat of Joe Lieberman is a seminal event in American politics, even though the incumbent Democrat may well come back and win this fall as an independent. The left wing of the Democratic Party is now energized as it hasn't been in years, and Iraq will no doubt now move to the top of the party's fall election agenda. The odds that Al Gore will challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination from the left in 2008 have clearly gone up. But the victory of Ned Lamont also exposes some of the weaknesses of the movement that propelled him to victory. Last night, Mr. Lamont accepted victory prominently flanked by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Not exactly the image one would want to convey to swing voters. There are already attempts by the Lamont Left to use his victory to mount a McGovern-style takeover of the party. Susan Estrich, the former campaign manager for Michael Dukakis in 1988, appeared on Fox News last night and openly warned Hillary Clinton that she had better adopt a strict anti-war stance or she can forget about being president. Then there are the bloggers who were the shock troops for the Lamont campaign. Markos Moulitsas, the proprietor of Daily Kos.com, barely bothered to revel in the Triumph of the Bloggers before he began issuing ultimatums last night. He urged Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid "to strip Lieberman of all committee assignments" and hand them to "real Democrats." A sectarian wing that calls for retribution against one of the Democratic Party's former vice presidential nominees and one who voted with his fellow Democrats 90% of the time is a new phenomenon in American politics. Whatever short-term successes the Lamont Left enjoys, I suspect that independent voters will wonder how many of its priorities have to do with them and how many with settling old scores inside the party. -- John Fund<<
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Having Jackson and Sharpton at his side would be like Bush having Dean and Michael Moore by his side. The guy better be careful who he invites to his bed. There is a lot of disease going around.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo You know, I don’t necessarily see this as a bad thing. In fact, Joe Lieberman may be exactly what an independent party needs in order to gain traction in 21st century politics; a main-stream figure who can appeal to both Republicans and Democrats. The polarization of the parties is to me a blessing in disguise, leaving moderates feeling more and more alienated. So liberals and conservatives go ahead and chose your best caricatures. And moderates, grow a set PLEASE! I’m so freaking tired of hearing the “at least it isn’t so-n-so†excuse for having to vote for the second WORST candidate on the ballot. This is exactly how we’ve gotten into the mess we are today. Anyhow, I guess I can always hope. It can’t stay the same forever…..can it?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper No, and it won't. I don't think that Ross Perot was an abberation. Here was a pretty straight forward guy who, had he not gone off the deep end, could have really impacted an election as an outsider. In fact, he might have garnered a significant percentage of the vote though I'm sure he would have lost. But, that guy was about the most un-Presidential looking guy since Nixon yet he still made a splash. I don't think Lieberman is the answer on a national ticket but I do think he has a short of winning in Connecticut as an Independent and it may be the shot in the arm the Independent movement needs. You find a good looking, charismatic guy/gal who has a few rich friends and I think the Independents, particularly if they are modearate, would have a good chance of turning the direction of American politics. I believe it will happen in my lifetime. It better or we are all really screwed.
Originally Posted By mele I am so torn. I believe that it is my responsibility to take part elections yet I feel there is no place for me. I don't trust any politician. I have seen my local government go directly against what the majority of people have voted, basically doing whatever the hell they wanted. I feel that most of the people who are my age and younger are too damn lazy and self-involved to take time to vote. (Yet, I know some feel as ambivalent as me.) I am definitely liberal yet I feel no connection to Democrats. I absolutely feel no connection to Republicans after being told how un-American I am for questioning the war. The Marriage Amendment pushed me even further away from Republicans. I feel completely alienated and powerless. What can a person do when there are no viable options? I feel like my devotion is completely up for grabs yet neither party really wants me. No party wants to change. Unfortunately, I think the state of things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060809/D8JD32KG1.html" target="_blank">http://apnews.myway.com/articl e/20060809/D8JD32KG1.html</a> >>Down but not out, Sen. Joe Lieberman filed to run for re-election in November as an independent, saying Wednesday it would be "irresponsible and inconsistent with my principles if I were to just walk off the field.".... Lieberman was undaunted by the challenge of going against his own party. "This race is going to be all about who can get more done and who can be a better representative for Connecticut," the former presidential contender said. Reid, Schumer and Dodd all stopped short of calling for Lieberman to reconsider, as did two potential presidential candidates for 2008, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and John Kerry of Massachusetts. Not so, Lamont. "I hope that over the course of the coming days, Joe's friends, neighbors and constituents will prevail upon him to reconsider and unite with Democrats across Connecticut who voted for change tonight," his campaign said in an e-mail sent out late Tuesday night. Asked Wednesday if there was anyone who could call and get him to change his mind, Lieberman replied: "Respectfully no. I'm committed to this campaign," he said in an interview on NBC's "Today" show.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/the_perils_of_partisanship.html" target="_blank">http://www.realclearpolitics.c om/articles/2006/08/the_perils_of_partisanship.html</a> >>Sen. Joe Lieberman thinks he lost last night's Democratic primary because of "partisanship." It's an odd charge to throw around in a party primary -- both candidates were, after all, Democrats -- but it's also not an insane one. Lieberman didn't lose because he's not enough of a Democrat, of course (in fact, he's a very reliable one); he lost because he's not the right kind of Democrat. Specifically, he's not the kind who hates Republicans with every fiber of his being. He's not the kind who will fling everything at the opposition, just to see what sticks. And he's not the kind who will do anything for his party, regardless of the effect on his country. In other words, he fancies himself more of a statesman than a politician -- and given the Democrats' fortunes at the polls in recent years, many on the netroots Left would prefer the latter to the former. To the casual observer, the logic of the Kos crowd taking on Joe Lieberman this year would seem to defy reason. For the first time since the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, the Democrats have an excellent shot at taking back the House and an outside chance of taking back the Senate. Polls show voters not just mad at Republicans or mad at Congress generally, but actually ready to throw out incumbents on scale not seen for more than a decade. Opposition to the Iraq war has the Left energized, gas prices have swing voters in a foul mood, and immigration has the GOP base split. Thus, the netroots' No. 1 priority is: replacing a solid Democratic senator with a different Democrat? Putting aside the particulars of Joe Lieberman, this just sounds insane. There are House and Senate seats held by Republicans that the netroots activists could be flooding with money and volunteered man hours. There are at least two House seats in Connecticut (held by Republicans Chris Shays and Rob Simmons) where the money could be more logically spent. There's Sen. Rick Santorum to take down in Pennsylvania. There's Sen. Conrad Burns in Montana in a close race against another netroots favorite, Jon Tester. Yet, somehow, Lieberman was priority No. 1. And if Lieberman pursues the independent bid he seems 100 percent committed to pursuing, Democrats will spend even more time and money fighting one of their own as November approaches. Why? Lieberman has the answer: partisanship. "The old politics of partisan polarization won today," Lieberman said in his concession/announcement speech. It's a politics, he said, that values insults over ideas, that labels every compromise a surrender, that calls every disagreement disloyalty. That anger, in case you missed it, was directed at the Left, not the Right. It's the Left that has built an entire primary campaign on an image of President Bush kissing Lieberman. It's the Left that calls Lieberman a Republican "enabler" for seeking common ground on important legislation. It's the Left that calls Lieberman a "traitor" for voting his conscience on Iraq and calling for unity during wartime. Yet, there's a logic to the Left's illogic in attacking Lieberman. The 2006 midterms, to the netroots, are essentially irrelevant. In fact, a victory for the Democrats in 2006 is the worst thing that could possibly happen to the Kos crowd. They have yet to truly "crash the gates" and take over the Democratic Party -- thus, a victory helmed by the hated "Democratic establishment" this year would render the Kossacks irrelevant.<<
Originally Posted By Dabob2 So, according to the WSJ, there's now a "Lamont Left?" Gimme a break; this guy was unknown until a few months ago, and now he's some sort of leader of the Democratic party? Since SW CT is considered metro NYC, we saw a LOT on this race. And, as the saying goes, all politics is local. This really is about Lieberman's support for the war, Lamont skillfully exploiting CT sentiment against that support, and squeaking through in the primary. He wasn't a representative of "partisanship" - he had essentially ONE issue. The war. He talked about little else. He skillfully made that issue THE issue, and took the position on that one issue that a majority of CT voters have. And Lieberman didn't try to change the conversation until it was too late. Had he caught a clue and done so, I don't think we'd be having this conversation today. Also, Lamont probably won't even win the general election, unless something really bad happens in Iraq to sour the public mood even more against the war. Most Dems running in 2006 have their positions on the war quite well defined in their respective local districts, and this race isn't going to affect that much, if at all. As for 2008, that will be much more affected by events in Iraq itself over the next two years than what people are saying today. Pundits love to look at a race like this where a high-profile incumbent loses and try to read all sorts of national implications into it, but I think they're reading entirely too much into it - both those who applaud the Lamont win and those who decry it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Lieberman didn't lose because he's not enough of a Democrat, of course (in fact, he's a very reliable one); he lost because he's not the right kind of Democrat.<< Funny that some Republicans deny they do this sort of thing all the time. See: McCain, John.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Having Jackson and Sharpton at his side would be like Bush having Dean and Michael Moore by his side. < more like taking the stage with Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson
Originally Posted By vbdad55 < Last night, Mr. Lamont accepted victory prominently flanked by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Not exactly the image one would want to convey to swing voters. < all one needs to know-- this is really going to play 'well' with middle America and moderates.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <So, according to the WSJ, there's now a "Lamont Left?" Gimme a break; this guy was unknown until a few months ago, and now he's some sort of leader of the Democratic party? < nope - the far left Dem's are usinghim as a guinea pig...and when Lieberman beats himin the general election, he will return to the obscurity he came from...he is not a leader of the new left....but by using him they push that wedge between them selves and the GOp even further apart so that moderate voters will have no one to vote for in 2008.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>So, according to the WSJ, there's now a "Lamont Left?" Gimme a break; this guy was unknown until a few months ago, and now he's some sort of leader of the Democratic party?<< No, he's the flavor of the moment. But how, indeed, does a wealthy nonentity like this gain such traction in just five months? That's a legitimate point to chew over, regardless of what they are calling him. >>...more like taking the stage with Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson.<< Exactly.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But how, indeed, does a wealthy nonentity like this gain such traction in just five months?<< By being against the war in a predominantly blue state, for starters.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--electionregistrat0731jul31" target="_blank">http://www.newsday.com/news/lo cal/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--electionregistrat0731jul31</a>,0,5116574.story >>Bysiewicz said the number of unaffiliated voters who have registered as Democrats is exceptionally high for Connecticut. About 942,000, or 45 percent, of the state's approximately 2.1 million voters are unaffiliated. They're the largest block, followed by about 702,000 Democrats and about 456,000 Republicans. << So that is 45% Unaffiliated (aka independent) 33% Democratic 22% Republican
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <So, according to the WSJ, there's now a "Lamont Left?" Gimme a break; this guy was unknown until a few months ago, and now he's some sort of leader of the Democratic party? < <nope - the far left Dem's are usinghim as a guinea pig...and when Lieberman beats himin the general election, he will return to the obscurity he came from...he is not a leader of the new left....but by using him they push that wedge between them selves and the GOp even further apart so that moderate voters will have no one to vote for in 2008.> I think this will have little impact on 2008, certainly if Lamont loses in November. I think moderates have a great chance in 2008. As I've said before, I think the Dems will nominate one of the moderate governors or ex-governors: Warner, Bayh or Vilsack. And I think the Republicans will be hard-pressed to go with someone who was too far-right or too rah-rah about the war, unless things get better fast.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <No, he's the flavor of the moment. But how, indeed, does a wealthy nonentity like this gain such traction in just five months? That's a legitimate point to chew over, regardless of what they are calling him.> He does it by spending a ton of his own money to make the war issue THE issue, and watch Lieberman first underestimate him, and then refuse to try to make the race about anything other than the war until it was too late. As a result, the primary seemed like a referendum on the war, which most CT Democrats oppose. Lieberman tried at the end to make it about his record in total, but it was too late.
