Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Tuesday Mid-Day Roundup
- The New York Times has yet another article discussing the race in the Metro section today. Their narrative now seems to be: "Ned's forced a primary. Can he actually win it?" Quotes like these - from ex-state party chair George Jepsen and current member of the state central committee Nick Paindiris - certainly go a long way towards answering that question:
"Once you scratch and sniff, you realize he would be a very credible senator, and that makes him a very credible candidate.... If he was a nut, Joe wouldn't have a problem. But he's intelligent. He's accomplished. There are no personal warts. He teaches in the Bridgeport public schools. How many people of his pedigree and background go do that?"
Mr. Jepsen, who supported Senator Lieberman in past races, has not taken a public position in the primary. He is among many Democrats, however, who predict that voters who are angry with Mr. Lieberman are likely to turn out in great numbers in the primary. The senator, he said, is "genuinely threatened on Aug. 8."...
Mr. Paindiris, who has supported Senator Lieberman in the past, called Mr. Lamont "a very progressive, principled individual." About the senator, he said, "For me the central issue is not the war, it's Joe Lieberman's allegiance to the Democratic Party. I question it."
BranfordBoy has more on what this article seems to be saying about the shifting attitude toward Lamont in the party establishment.
- At Daily Kos, David Sirota writes about Joe Lieberman's hostile takeover of the term "centrism." He argues that Joe is out of touch with his party, with his constituents, and with America on any number of issues, but gets away with it - and is celebrated for it - because of the right wing's success in getting the media to dishonestly define "centrism." Read and recommend.
- Joementum.com has a brilliant takedown of Joe's attack ad. So brilliant, I need to quote the bulk of it:
While we’re on the subject of voting records lets take a look at some of Joe’s highlights:
Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
Voted NO on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)
Voted YES on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)
From this we can fairly conclude that Joe: wants you dead, supports the international drug trade, is a homophobe who doesn’t want a balanced budget, has given up on public schools, is a republican, doesn’t value your privacy, thinks workers shouldn’t be given a living wage and, thinks textile factories in America should go out of business.
Not pretty on the surface, but then again, at least Joe is fighting the good fight against asbestos!
- Colin McEnroe had a fun column in the Courant this weekend psychoanalyzing the relationship between Connecticut's one real Democratic senator and Joe Lieberman, now that Dodd has decided to scratch his 2008 itch just a little bit:
So what was he doing on the night of Friday, May 19? Risking the rage of progressive Democrats by giving yet another nominating speech for Guess Who and demonstrating to the world that, far from being a mighty rainmaker and good-luck charm, he is struggling to breathe life, in his own back yard, into a colleague who is flatlining despite the kind of intensive care ordinarily reserved, in America, for champion racehorses with broken legs.
The truest line in Dodd's speech was, "I'm here tonight because Joe Lieberman asked me."
That and a hostage situation were the only possible explanations.