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).
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Sunday Morning Round-Up
Nine days...
- Full New York Times endorsement is here. It's a scathing and comprehensive case for how Sen. Lieberman works against the interests of Connecticut voters and the Democratic party alike, and why he should be replaced with with Sen. Lamont:
If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.
DemFromCT has one good take on the implications of the NYT endorsement. - While millionaire lawyer Joe Lieberman continues to hold press-only events with no members of the public showing up, Ned talked to about 75 voters in Bristol yesterday afternoon, as well as many voters at a barber shop in Hartford, a gathering at a park in Bridgeport, and a free concert on the green in New Haven:
The pair spent the early part of a sweltering afternoon in Hartford's North End at the It's A Gee Thang Barber Salon at 2576 Main St., where owner Lebert Fitzgerald Lester II said "this community is wondering" about the wisdom of years of dependable support for Lieberman.
After that, in Bridgeport, Lamont shook scores of hands - including that of city Mayor John Fabrizi, who seconded Lieberman's nomination at the party's May convention - during the Father Panik Village residents' reunion at a park next to the site of the demolished housing project. - "Hubris and Naivite." The story of Joe Lieberman's sorry campaign, ignoring voters' real concerns, as elucidated by Mark Pazniokas in the Courant today:
Today, with nine days left until his Aug. 8 primary with anti-war challenger Ned Lamont, Lieberman is scrambling to regain his footing among Democrats who repeatedly signaled their anger over the war - only to be ignored.
Public and private polling told Lieberman in January that Democrats were abandoning him over his efforts to prop up public support for an unpopular war that was paralyzing the Bush administration and jeopardizing the GOP's control of Congress.
But Lieberman persisted.
"I was worried about a repeat of Vietnam," he said Friday during an interview aboard his campaign bus. "Public opinion was moving away from supporting the war for reasons that were understandable, but not complete."
In acts that seemed infused with hubris and naivete, Lieberman decided he could single-handedly reverse public opinion, first with the op-ed article and then with a speech in which he seemed to warn against dissent, saying "that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."
Yes, hubris and naivete have both had a lot to do with it, but sometimes it seems like complete stupidity is the real culprit. (i.e. Joe says he was "worried about a repeat of Vietnam"? What exactly does he mean by that? Wasn't he himself an "anti-war" candidate during Vietnam?) - Speaking of stupidity, here's some more of that from the senator, in another excellent article detailing his complete disconnect from voters by Shailagh Murray in the WaPo:
The strain shows. At campaign events, Lieberman at times appears subdued and weary. He projects little of the cheerful enthusiasm that marked his long-shot presidential bid two years ago. "It's difficult personally," Lieberman said last week of the defections by party veterans such as Stolberg. "I am competing in the most difficult part of the Connecticut electorate for me."
Yes, I think you read that right. Joe Lieberman just said the Democratic party is the "most difficult part of the Connecticut electorate" for him. Shock. And then there's this one:"I felt all along I would have a challenge," Lieberman quipped. "But I was hoping God would send me a poor one." The senator, however, has raised $7 .2 million for his campaign.
What an absurdly dumb and offensive thing to say. Apparently millionaire Lieberman being able to outspend his opponent 2-to-1 isn't fair enough. He wanted a "poor" challenger, so he wouldn't have to actually face the voters on anything approaching a level playing field. Contempt for democracy. Entitlement. But, mainly, stupidity.
(As an aside, it's interesting how the Courant and WaPo - which both ran boilerplate GOP-rhetoric pro-Joe editorials today - also both ran news articles detailing how he has completely lost touch with Connecticut voters.) - DeStefano and Malloy both want a piece of Ned's action.
Comments:
<< Home
My nomination for quote of the campaign:
One of the women, Karen Schuessler of Ridgefield, told me she had bought an expensive ticket to a Lieberman fundraiser last December, so she could tell him directly how much she opposed the war. “He told me, `Things are looking better over there. They’re voting. They have a constitution.’ I thought, What a moron!”
From "The Cause Beats the Candidate"
By DAVID S. BRODER
July 30, 2006
One of the women, Karen Schuessler of Ridgefield, told me she had bought an expensive ticket to a Lieberman fundraiser last December, so she could tell him directly how much she opposed the war. “He told me, `Things are looking better over there. They’re voting. They have a constitution.’ I thought, What a moron!”
From "The Cause Beats the Candidate"
By DAVID S. BRODER
July 30, 2006
Lieberman: Democrats my toughest constituency
Gosh, I wonder why? WaPo:
"It's difficult personally," Lieberman said last week of the defections by party veterans such as Stolberg. "I am competing in the most difficult part of the Connecticut electorate for me."
Yeah.... Democrats!
[Originally posted at Corrente.
Gosh, I wonder why? WaPo:
"It's difficult personally," Lieberman said last week of the defections by party veterans such as Stolberg. "I am competing in the most difficult part of the Connecticut electorate for me."
Yeah.... Democrats!
[Originally posted at Corrente.
At first I couldn't belive my eyes when I read that line from today's WaPo about the Senator wanting God to send him a "poor one." Remarkably, unbelievably it sounded like he actually wanted to go head-to-head with someone who could not pose a meaningful challenge. What kind of a person SAYS something like that? I'm sorry, but a comment like that just struck me as . . . un-American. Is the Senator not up for a competitive race? Well, that's just too darned bad 'cause he's got one on his hands now.
That's what our system of democracy is supposed to be about. But, oh wait, we're not quite there yet in terms of evening the field for all political candidates and that's why we need to reform the system so it's not just the big-$ lobbyist and special insterest folks who can play this game, but us little/regular people can also play a role and hopefully elect someone to really represent us, someone like Ned!!!
That's what our system of democracy is supposed to be about. But, oh wait, we're not quite there yet in terms of evening the field for all political candidates and that's why we need to reform the system so it's not just the big-$ lobbyist and special insterest folks who can play this game, but us little/regular people can also play a role and hopefully elect someone to really represent us, someone like Ned!!!
friendly_shark - I am with you 100%. Lieberman is trying to joke about his desire to avoid the democratic process in its entirety. He prayed to God to have an opponent who simply couldn't afford to run against him. It's truly offensive that he thinks that the health of our democracy is an appropriate subject to try to make light of.
Post a Comment
<< Home