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).
Friday, July 14, 2006
Friday Morning Round-Up
- Stephen Colbert takes on Lieberman vs. Lamont. Personally, I couldn't care less about what right-wing talking heads like him have to say about the race. But if you really want to watch, fine, go ahead. Update: I usually don't like to use emoticons, but... ;)
- Raphael Sonenshein, a political scientiest at Cal State Fullerton, comprehensively describes Lieberman's real problem for the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles:
Lieberman seems to be genuinely baffled and indeed petulant that his fellow Democrats won't let him have it both ways: To say he is a strong Democrat with a largely progressive record and to work hand-in-glove with the White House to denigrate his own long-suffering and battered party....
At least let's stop pretending that this is a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. That is far too elevated an enterprise. This is really about the consequences of Lieberman wanting to have his cake and eat it, too. - Mark Schmitt is also on the ball at TPM Cafe. Suddenly a bunch of columnists and opinion makers seem to be realizing Lieberman's "Connecticut Problem" is what this race is really about:
Can we please put to rest the idea that Ned Lamont’s challenge to Senator Lieberman is a product of, or a wholly-owned subsidiary of, that thing called "the netroots."...
The plausibility of the Lamont campaign is attributable to two major things, none of which have anything to do with Markos Moulitsas or his loyal minions:
1. Decades of statewide progressive organizing in the state. Lamont’s campaign manager is no blogger, but Tom Swan, who left his job as head of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG) to run the campaign. ...
2. The fact that Lieberman has run, so far, the second most embarrassingly bad campaign of the year. (The worst campaign’s entire staff just quit [Katherine Harris], so there may be an opening to move up.) - Spazeboy brings up an excellent point in advance of the 2Q numbers that should be released today or tomorrow:
This being one of the highest profile primary elections of the year (if not the highest profile), I think that it’s reasonable to expect the same fine-tooth-comb scrutiny of Senator Lieberman's finances and fundraising reports as there will be of Ned Lamont's.
Fact is, Lieberman will likely outspend Lamont by a huge margin in this race. We know Lamont has sworn offPACD.C lobbyist money. We know Lieberman absolutely devoursPACD.C. lobbyist money from the energy lobby, health insurance lobby, etc. Let's see a real focus on the incumbent's sources of campaign funding for once.
Comments:
<< Home
I didn't know Ned had sworn off PAC money. I thought he had sworn off LOBBYIST money.
IMO, there's nothing inherently wrong with PAC money. There are many great people-powered PACs that simply magnify the power of individual donors by pooling their donations. Aren't DFA and MoveOn PACs?
IMO, there's nothing inherently wrong with PAC money. There are many great people-powered PACs that simply magnify the power of individual donors by pooling their donations. Aren't DFA and MoveOn PACs?
Maura- You might be correct. I'm not sure, and I can't find any sourcing on it, so I made a slight corretion.
Post a Comment
<< Home