The JJB Dinner Introductions

That just made my day (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for sharing.

---

by: CaptCT @ Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:43:57 AM UTC

That's how I remember it! (0.00 / 0)

And maybe, just maybe, it's starting to dawn on Nancy exactly how much the CT Democrats were behind Ned; and how she might have made a significant difference by acting more decisively in calling for Lieberman to drop out after losing the Primary, or by threatening to strip Joe of his Democratic credentials by not honoring the Primary results. 

By allowing him all that latitude to pretend he was still a Democrat, she cost Ned votes.  I don't know if it would have been enough to swing the election, but her wishy-washy inaction sure as hell didn't help him.

Connecticut Bob

---

by: Bob Adams @ Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:34:55 PM UTC

You know (0.00 / 0)

I think the issue isn't specific to her: people in the CT Democratic Party tolerated "Rell Democrats" and "Shays Democrats" before Joe's post-primary apostasy: being less than an open, proud, and loud Democrat was, I think, seen as helpful to the party in appealing to moderates and conservatives -- the "Reagan Democrats" of the world.

I just think the CT party is a few years behind our national institutions in recognizing how the conservative movement has really redefined politics in the last decade -- hopefully after 06 we're most of the way to caught up.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 02:52:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A broader problem (0.00 / 0)

New England, perhaps the entire Northeast, as a whole seems to have come around to what a scourge republicans are these days, a far lower and contemptible breed than we saw in the Reagan/Bush1 era, or even in Nixon's time. Back then true moderates (as opposed to spineless Shays-like moderates) were not only tolerated but listened to.

Republicans with this Bush administration are effectively extinct now in the northeast, perhaps for a generation. That is the Bush legacy.

The democrats problem is subtler, a subtext of the entire midterm elections. For that I blame the DSCC and Harry Reid. We'd all like to believe the democrats are a better lot than the republicans, that they stand for something. But when you look at it not a word was said publicly about a man who not only contested a democratic primary and lost but who then went went on and challenged the democratic nominee, winning and then welcomed with open arms by the democratic establishment back into the U.S. Senate. That sent and continues to send a horrible message: short-term strategic advantage will always outweigh democratic principle. Reid could have said something but chose not to. And I suspect Nancy DiNardo was told explicitly not to criticize Lieberman by democratic leadership. The longterm consequences of choosing this path remain to be seen.

---

by: Scarce @ Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 13:29:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They Really Had No Choice At The Time (0.00 / 0)

I don't blame the Democrats for trying to welcome Joe back into the fold. Every single one of them would have done the same thing he did if they had lost a primary.

What I can't understand is why no one says anything NOW when it is crystal clear how far off the reservation he is.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 15:16:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now is rather pointless (0.00 / 0)

The spectacle and symbolism of Lieberman challenging the democratic nominee was plain. Reid and Schumer were said to "have had a word" with Lieberman just after the primary, encouraging him not to run. Whether they did that or not is not terribly important: nothing was said in public voicing their disapproval.

Some would call this beating a dead horse but I don't agree. If the democrats judgment is to be trusted they'll have to do better than this.

---

by: Scarce @ Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 15:35:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure about that. (0.00 / 0)

I don't know if every single incumbent dem would have run as an independent after losing their primary. Even if they wanted to, they may not have been able to because of their respective states' laws. From my understanding, the state law in CT which allowed Lieberman to run in the general after losing the primary is NOT common among the other states.

Even so (and I really hate to say this), Joe played his cards right in '06. He realized that if he could come close to Ned in the primary (i.e. not having lost in a landslide), then his chances in the general will be very good.

I think the establishment dems wanted to see a more convincing loss in the primary before pushing Joe out of their party. When they did not see that, they hedge their bets--and left CT alone.

Thankfully, in '07, Joe is playing his cards foolishly. By continuing to side with the Bush&Co in the Iraq War, he is digging himself into a greater irrelevancy more and more each day, just like his good buddy John McCain.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 15:52:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]