August 09, 2006
Lessons from Lieberman

Call me a skeptic, but I'm having trouble buying into the great import being placed on Ned Lamont's close victory over Joe Liberman by some in the liberal blogosphere and the MSM. At its core, what last night's Democratic primary showed is that ardent Democratic voters are very unhappy about the Iraq war. That is not a stunning turn of events.

Take a step back from the netroots hype already seeping into the press. In 2004, 1.58 million people cast a vote for President of the United States in Connecticut. Yesterday, 280,000 voted in the Democratic primary, giving Ned Lamont a narrow 10,000 vote victory. This after he spent at least $3.1 million of his own money on the race; in contrast to the $300,000 he raised from the netroots.

In addition, the culmination of yesterday's race exposed some profound rifts in the Democratic party that do not bode well for aggregate Democrat hopes in November. Former Clinton operative Lanny Davis bemoaned the nastiness of the liberal blogosphere he experienced while campaigning for Lieberman (those that recall the political wars of the late '90's appreciate the irony in his complaints). Now Daily Kos is quickly making harsh demands to punish Lieberman. Classy.

Speaking of classy, besides the likes of Daily Kos, consider this crowd present at the Lamont victory party: Jesse Jackson, Kim Gandy, and Al Sharpton, not to mention Katrina vanden Heuvel who campaigned for Lamont in the closing days of the campaign. This is not the makings of a new governing coalition with appeal to the common man.

Credit to the netroots for spurring some of the enthusiasm that embraced Lamont's candidacy. Don't assume, however, that despite the hype, Lamont's victory signals the broad national movement some would like to make it out to be.

Posted by Eric Earling at August 09, 2006 07:24 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Let's not forget that moonbat Mckinney in Georgia lost to a more moderate democrat. This is as important if not more than the Lieberman. It shows that the liberal left has alienated an important part of it's base, the southern blacks. Without them, there is no way to win on the national level.

Posted by: Mobius on August 9, 2006 07:36 AM
2. Lamont's victory, in the end, is a victory for Republicans and Conservatives all over the country.

It shows the common person and average American voter how much the nutbags and moonbats can turn on one of the more moderate voices on their side of the aisle. It'll send a shudder up the spine of any reasonable, intelligent person going to the polls this November.

It should be crystal clear to every American that the Democratic Party is the party of No National Security, of Appeasing Terrorists, and of Cutting and Running and Whining.

And we can thank Lamont for that.

Posted by: Larry on August 9, 2006 07:37 AM
3. If the Republicans are on their game, then they would be working the phones to the Jewish community leaders in NYC and Florida today - asking them why the blazes do they vote 80% for Democrats when it is clear that the party has no use for them or their issues. A few commentaries analyzing the question "Is the Democratic Party anti-Semitic" would help as well.

Posted by: John McDonald on August 9, 2006 07:42 AM
4. What people fail to realize is that this was NOT just about the war. As a matter of fact, as a CT resident, that was only a very small piece of a huge problem. Joe stopped listening to his constituents. It is not his place do do what "he" thinks is right, but to do what the majority of the people of CT want.
The day he stopped listening to us was the day that he started losing votes.

Posted by: Kristen on August 9, 2006 07:45 AM
5. Am I missing something here, or is this going to quickly backfire on the Democrats?

Lieberman is now running as an independant, and if he carries a significant percentage of his old voters with him into the election, the Republican Candidate will have an easy victory.

Posted by: Measure on August 9, 2006 08:02 AM
6. The day he stopped listening to us was the day that he started losing votes.

Kristen

Joe Lieberman was one of the most reliable voters the Democrats had voting with his Democratic brothers 90% of the time.

Try again.

Or is it just that he's one of those dirty Jews?

Posted by: swassociates on August 9, 2006 08:02 AM
7. Kristen said:

Joe stopped listening to his constituents. It is not his place do do what "he" thinks is right, but to do what the majority of the people of CT want.
The day he stopped listening to us was the day that he started losing votes.

Disclaimer: I am not in CT.

You say that the "Majority" of the people in CT, but the election was a primary and as such the motivated and more radical elements of the ONE party came out of the woodwork to vote. That hardly is a representation of the entire state.

I believe that "Joe" is not losing votes in CT, he lost Democratic votes in CT. A radical minority rallied against him in a primary, but on polls pitting him against Ned and the Rebublican candidate, he wins handily. That shows that the ENTIRE state of constituents favor him verses the radical element of the democratic constituents that do not favor him.

Posted by: Eyago on August 9, 2006 08:04 AM
8. If I understand Kristen correctly, Sen. Lieberman should have stopped going to committee meetings, or reading legislation, so he could put all of his efforts into polling the people of his state on every issue. You have to love the moonbat lefties, ( They are so cute when they are mad )

Posted by: Kevin on August 9, 2006 08:07 AM
9. Joe is indeed a reliable voter for his party, despite his persona as a "moderate" because of this votes on the war. Take a look at his votes from a conservative position the past couple years.

Posted by: Palouse on August 9, 2006 08:10 AM
10. You know that Seattle-based Moxie Media handled Lamont's campaign. Among their other clients are Supreme Court Justice Susan Owens and FairPAC, the PAC to re-elect Washington's"progressive" judges.

Posted by: pdxgal on August 9, 2006 08:15 AM
11. What happened to the old trick of Rs voting for Lieberman in the primary? If shoe on other foot, it would have been the Ds switching parties.

I think he lost by a lot because of the switchover. I don't think he will get those votes in the general election. But hey, the general election will have twice as many voters and will have more normal people voting.

Posted by: swatter on August 9, 2006 08:15 AM
12. Even Howard Dean won a primary....

Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 9, 2006 08:26 AM
13. Even McGovern won a primary...

So yesterday about 18% of the CT voters that turned out in the last election for President, voted in the Dem primary. Of those, they went roughly 52% Lamont, 48% Liberman.

In a heavily blue state, the "anti-war" candidate that spent 3.1 million of his own money, managed to beat a reliably Dem voting senator by a wopping 4%.

Big Deal.

Posted by: Shaun on August 9, 2006 08:43 AM
14. Ignore the spin of the subversive left. Connecticut has something over 1.5 million voters. Of that about 18% voted in the Democrat primary. Of that 18% slightly over half - around 10% - voted for the "anti-war winner." That means less than 10% of the voters voted against Lieberman. That is the strength of the subversive left, about 10%.

The subversive left is extremely vocal and active. That coupled with subversive press makes them seem like a viable force.

November will probably see either Lieberman or a Republican Senator from Connecticut when a goodly portion of the other 82 percent of the voters kick in.

Posted by: Bullmaxon on August 9, 2006 08:48 AM
15. Kristen, you're dead wrong. His job is not to vote the way his constituents want. If that was all that was required, you wouldn't need congressmen. You'd simply have a daily poll and let those results carry the day.

Disclosure: NOT a CT resident. Thanks be to God.

Posted by: Danny on August 9, 2006 08:58 AM
16. What Lieberman's defeat telegraphed to the whole country is simply that the extremist left wing of the Democrat Party will sacrifice any American to regain their power. Lieberman has been one of the very few rational, albiet liberal representatives of the Democrat Party, and his primary defeat last night has more to do with the extremists' hatred of Bush than anything else.

In response to Kristin, she might read up on the difference between a republic and a democracy. America is a Constitutional Republic, and as such it is not the responsibility of a United States Senator to do whatever the majority of his constituents want. It is the responsibility of a Senator to make decisions in the best interests of his constituents, even if those constituents are so stupid as to want to invite terrorism into their neighborhoods and communities. And even if it will cost that Senator his job.

That Lieberman would be cast off for standing his ground, while Democrats rally around empty shells like Maria Cantwell who will bend with every political breeze, says volumes about a party and its underlying motivation, where principals and protecting Americans means nothing. It's all politics and regaining power.

Well, if America falls for the Democrats' empty promises and leadership into oblivion, then perhaps evolution and survival of the fittest applies to nations too.

Americans have the right to elect any baffoon they wish. The Democrat Party has made that abundantly clear with their Boxers, Pelosis, McDermotts, Conyers, McKinneys, Reids, Kennedys, etc. Americans also have the right to allow this nation to be destroyed through its own stupidity and hatred, and if the Democrats get their way, that will be the outcome of their insanity.

"Liberalism is a mental disorder" - Michael Savage

Whenever you try to understand a liberal, remember that you can't understand what is not rational.

Posted by: MJC on August 9, 2006 09:03 AM
17. And Kristen, you obviously forgot this is not a pure Democracy we have. It is a Republic. As such, we elect leaders to make decisions for us, not as a result of polling us. We elect them because we think they are smarter, more experienced, and can do the job better than we can.
Not from CT, thank God.

Posted by: katomar on August 9, 2006 09:08 AM
18. This was only the primary.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 9, 2006 09:18 AM
19. As I'm sure Kristen would agree, being a Republic and electing representatives to make informed decisions for us does not mean that they can stop representing the will of the constituency altogether if they want to remain in politics. It is after all a representative form of government, i.e. representing the people.

Posted by: Gabriel on August 9, 2006 09:19 AM
20. I almost fell off the couch laughing last night when Lamont was surrounded at his victory podium with Jackson, Sharpton, Kim Gandy, etc. I'd been thinking that we were making too much of this whole Leiberman thing. I was wrong. The kooks are taking over the Democratic party again, (can you say 1972?). This can't be a good thing for Maria. I bet she had a sleepless night.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 9, 2006 09:19 AM
21. Americans also have the right to allow this nation to be destroyed through its own stupidity and hatred, and if the Democrats get their way, that will be the outcome of their insanity.

MJC, The Republicans under Bush have monstrously damaged our security and standing in the world with their ineptitude and short-sightedness. It's amazing that you can sit there and predict such dire consequences if the Dems gain power, when in fact the nightmare scenario is outside your door right now. We're mired in a long war which Bush does not know how to fight, he will never admit he is wrong, he's a big-government conservative, and he's put the country in the hands of religious nuts more than ever before. And you think Dems would be a nightmare?

Posted by: Gabriel on August 9, 2006 09:30 AM
22. Sorry Kristen, Edmund Burke disposed of your opinion ... oh, about 232 years ago in his Speech to the Electors of Bristol.

Posted by: TimF on August 9, 2006 09:32 AM
23. I always thought much of CT loved Lieberman but the fringe just had him fired. Voters loyal to Lieberman will probably stay loyal which splits the democrat voting base.

This opens the door for a Republican challenger, thankyou moveon.

Posted by: billb on August 9, 2006 09:33 AM
24. Gabriel: I assume you would agree that representing the people also includes protecting them? Joe Lieberman has voted "left" 90% of the time. Check the stats. The only issue he stood firm on was defense and Iraq. They're dumping him because he supports Bush on this issue, and ONLY because of this. Political cannibals.

Posted by: katomar on August 9, 2006 09:33 AM
25. Given the lemming experience of Goldwater in 1964 and McGovern in 1972, Joe Lieberman will probably win reelection to the Senate this fall

The Republican candidate for Senate is not that strong, and all the chatter about Lamont and Lieberman splitting the vote and the Republican winning is silly

A lot of people I spoke with in 2000 would have preferred Cheney and Lieberman as president and vp, because they seemed more normal than George Bush and John Kerry

Just as Seattle wears an armband of shame with James McDermott as their US Representative, a minoirity of Democratic CT voters have embarrassed their state

Posted by: Green Lake Mark on August 9, 2006 09:47 AM
26. Gabriel says: "The Republicans under Bush have monstrously damaged our security and standing in the world with their ineptitude and short-sightedness. It's amazing that you can sit there and predict such dire consequences if the Dems gain power, when in fact the nightmare scenario is outside your door right now. We're mired in a long war which Bush does not know how to fight, he will never admit he is wrong, he's a big-government conservative, and he's put the country in the hands of religious nuts more than ever before."

Nice recitation of the Dems talking points, Gabriel. Lets get some specifics. What does your side intend to do about the war? And would you please name exactly who the "religious nuts" are that the President has put the country in "the hands of"?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 9, 2006 09:52 AM
27. They're dumping him because he supports Bush on this issue, and ONLY because of this.

That is certainly the most important issue, but it is one in a pattern - from Terry Schiavo to social security to Iraq and others.

Posted by: Gabriel on August 9, 2006 09:52 AM
28. Gabriel,

After answering Bill's (26) question answer what are the Dems doing about social security. What is their 'plan'? Or are the Ds saying there are no problems with the system so no change is needed?

It is so easy to critisize people that are actually doing something. The Ds don't seem to have any plans (other than we will win the war by retreating) on anything.

Posted by: Fred on August 9, 2006 10:11 AM
29. Gabriel,

The struggle is in Iraq and Afghanistan today. If Gore or Kerry had been elected, the nightmare would be outside my door today.

The left finds it so easy to criticize and attack our efforts in Iraq, but I can't imagine what you'd be saying if we had the losses and deaths we saw in World War II. But then again, you'd probably have opposed our involvement in that war, even after Pearl Harbor, if a Republican had been president, huh?

"We're mired in a long war which Bush does not know how to fight, he will never admit he is wrong, he's a big-government conservative, and he's put the country in the hands of religious nuts more than ever before."

5 years without a repeat of 9/11 on US soil. Bush has admitted to mistakes, but generals and the best we have plan and implement tactics, and it is laughable that critics like you, who obviously knows absolutely nothing about fighting a war against terrorism, can sit their in judgment and attack our president in a time of war.

Posted by: MJC on August 9, 2006 10:18 AM
30. Don't hold your breath Fred. There is one thing the lefties find impossible to do. Answering a specific, direct question. And like Fred says Gabriel, what do you bright people intend to do about social security...besides forming a "blue ribbon committee" another thing you people do to make it look like you're doing something.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 9, 2006 10:24 AM
31. Lets talk Democratic History of keeping a strong military. Carter Cut defense spending. Clinton Cut defense spending.
Democrats = Weaker Defense.
Think about it before all the social programs were enacted by Democrats about 50% of the budget was spent on US Defense. Well today It may seem like a lot of money we do not even spend 20% of the Budget on Defense. Yet we outspend the world. WHy because we have a very large budget and the rest of the world needs our military to save their butts. The rest of the world except maybe Israel does not want to spend the money on defense only social programs.
Bottom line Democrats are the party of appeasement. They are the party that would support terrorists by leaking secret military tactics used to track down terrorists. Democrats are not good for AMerica unless you want to be blackmailed. Look at the great diplomatic deal in the 90's with North Korea. Did they keep thier word. No when the time was right they attempt blackmail on the US again. The same goes with terrorists. sure they may stay quiet for a while while they build up. The next time instead of a few thousands what happens if it is tens of thousands killed. Democrats say everyone in the world has constitutional protection. SO if the military capture solders and fail to read them their rights does that mean they have to release these prisoners because thier rights are violated?? SOrry but Lieberman stood for a strong military Could that be the reason the left hate him so. Obviously the message sent is Democrats want a weak military. I cant trust them to defend this country. I know I was in the NAVY in the 80's and 90's I know and saw the differences on how the military is treated under Democratic and Republican presidents. The war on terrorism is not a vietnam but your life and death. Terrorism wants to throw bombs in our streets. Yea cut and run and our porious borders will allow hundreds if not thousands of terrorist to cross the borders. IS that why Democrats want to block any strong legislature to defend our borders??? Democrats have shown in the National realm is that rights of terrorists to kill Americans means more than Stop the terrorists from conducting their attacks. Harsh words but true. The cause and effects of your hatred of Bush.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on August 9, 2006 10:37 AM
32. Well put David. It just shows how deluded the lefties are when they think the key to world peace is to sit around drinking chai tea with terrorists. I'm sure that's just what Lamont would be in favor of.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 9, 2006 11:34 AM
33. There is Good News and Bad News that came out of the Lieberman Defeat...

The Bad News:
The Demorat's showed us that they are DRIVEN by their insane haltered of Pres Bush. They showed that they are VERY prepared to put up a win at any cost effort. They are also organized...in the Washington 27th district, there are 359 voting precincts. The Demorat's have one P.C.O. and one asst. P.C.O. for every precinct, complete with walking lists, voter information, who needs a ride ECT. The Republicans have maybe six total P.C.O.' s.

The Good News:
Maybe now the "Fence Sitting, Pinko, P.C., Socially Misaligned" Demorat's will be forced to show their true colors to appease the Far Left Wacko's!!!


P.S. I heard that Hillary invited Joe out for a "COLD ONE" after the election results were in...but Joe refused, saying that he was a married man and is true to his wife.

Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on August 9, 2006 11:40 AM
34. Everything that can be said has been said.
I'll just add that I'm rather hesitant to ascribe any greater meaning to the results of an August primary in a state that is smaller in size and population than King County.

I'm sure this won't stop others from trying to discern greater meaning in these tea leaves of Lamont's victory and Liberman's primary defeat.

Posted by: Reporterward on August 9, 2006 11:57 AM
35. Might I remind all you DEM's. Nam was your nightmare you started and left it up to Nixion to fix!

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 9, 2006 03:49 PM
36. Reporterward:

King County population: 1,793,583
Connecticut population: 3,405,565

Posted by: Timothy on August 9, 2006 05:09 PM
37. Eric - The ActBlue Netroots numbers are not the sum total of all Netroots contributions. Candidates get far more donations directly, even via the Netroots, than ActBlue ever brings in.

Meanwhile, you neglect to understand how the CT primary system works: unaffiliated voters were not eligible to vote in the Primary. About 900,000, or 44% of registered voters in CT are unaffiliated.

Only around 130,000 Democrats voted in the 2004 presidential primary in Connecticut. Yesterday that number was more than double at 283,055. With estimates that turnout was record 40+% for a primary in CT, that makes an estimate of about 700,000 registered Democratic voters. I believe the number is actually somewhere closer to 750,000.

This election earned Lamont more votes than total Democratic voters in the 2004 primaries. That's significant.

As for the rifts, it is looking less and less like there will be great rifts. Democratic leaders are voicing their support for the Democratic winner in CT - Lamont. They probably also see that something significant did happen in CT.

But unlike your closing suggestion, the people I talk to about this assume nothing about what it will mean in November. Assumptions are for losers, and our goal is to win based on staying focused every day on the battles to come.

Posted by: Daniel K on August 9, 2006 05:13 PM
38. Daniel K is up for "the battles to come". And, DK, what would those battles be? Lamont is so blatantly and obviously today's Neville Chamberlain. Neville Chamberain, DK, in light of the fact history appears to have utterly eluded you-probably because you are a product of the sterling Seattle Public Schools. Neville Chamberlain is universally considered an abject, deluded, appeasing fool, and maybe the worst one by far in the 20th Century. We can tackle the Islamofacists on their turf, or ours. Personally, I find George Patton's quote appropro: "Life isn't about dying for your principles. It's about letting the other poor dumb bastard die for his." So, DK, on whose turf shall we settle this pesky matter of the survival of Western civilization? I vote for trashing, or better yet eliminating, the loon- over there........Mr Lamont seems to be just like the JP Morgan trust fund baby that he is, just like Billy Madison, just like Al Gore, just like Ned Lamont, Jim McDermott, the bobsy twins Murray/ Cantwell, Queen Christine-utterly clueless, pass the Kool Aid, drink up dude......

Posted by: Hank on August 9, 2006 05:31 PM
39. Yes, Hank, I'm completely aware of my countryman Neville Chamberlain (yes, I carry a dual citizenship). I am also not a product of an Seattle school, but pray tell what you are a product of? I can think of one possibility.

You can continue to take wild stabs in the dark. I'm focused on the political races we'll be voting on in September and November. What were those WA-27 numbers Pacific Grove Phlash wrote above?

Posted by: Daniel K on August 9, 2006 05:42 PM
40. Daniel -

I'm well aware that it is impossible to capture with 100% certainty how much netroots money has been raised (especially when such folks donate directly through the campaign). The point, however, was the degree to which Lamont is self-funding, a number that dwarfs his "netroots" support no matter how one is able to evaluate it.

Also, I'm equally aware of how the CT primary works. I never said turnout among registered Democrats was low, the point was, as you touched on in part, the relative number of voters in the Democratic primary v. the traditional body of general election voters in the state. Those numbers are and will be a stark contrast.

And of course "leading Democrats" are lining up behind Lamont. They're all afraid of getting on the wrong side of an angry base. But that doesn't mean there is agreement in the voting coalition Democrats have traditionally relied upon to form electoral majorities.

Lastly, you may not be jumping to conclusions, but a scan of the liberal blogosphere reveals many of your compatriots are reading more into Tuesday's results than they prudently should.

Thanks for your comments. They were thoughtful and well-constructed; I appreciate that.

Posted by: Eric Earling on August 10, 2006 08:12 AM
41. It's so touching to hear all the love for Lieberman. Maybe you will throw some votes his way as an independent?

Also, how are those tax cuts doing for you? Doing well financially? Able to fill the super duty with gas?

Things sure are running great. I feel safe, even though our govenment was rated "F" as far as airport security after 9/11.

We don't drink tea with terrorists but Bush holds hands with them.

Cheers
Grady

Posted by: Grady on August 10, 2006 08:48 AM
42. It's so touching to hear all the love for Lieberman. Maybe you will throw some votes his way as an independent?

Also, how are those tax cuts doing for you? Doing well financially? Able to fill the super duty with gas?

Things sure are running great. I feel safe, even though our govenment was rated "F" as far as airport security after 9/11.

We don't drink tea with terrorists but Bush holds hands with them.

Cheers
Grady

Posted by: Grady on August 10, 2006 08:48 AM
43. I am elated that Lieberman lost the primary. If all goes as expected, Lamont and Lieberman will split the domocratic vote and the Republican will waltz right into the Senate. Now, if we could only come up with a solid plan for Hong Tran to beat Maria Cantwell...

Posted by: emily on August 10, 2006 08:55 AM
44. Mckinney in Georgia lost to a more moderate democrat


Incorrect. She lost to a more 'sane' democrat, not a more 'moderate' one.

Their positions on the issues, with the possible exception of Israel, are not really different. It's just that Hank Johnson seems to be a friendly, sociable fellow, while McKinney is an out-of-control nutjob.

Posted by: Cliff S on August 10, 2006 09:34 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?