I can't help but be nauseated by the fawning coverage of Lieberman's retirement. Perhaps Hearst's Brian Lockhart's article is the worst: "Lieberman's Legacy: Good and Decent Man."
Are you kidding me? Not a word about the more than 40,000 dead and wounded Americans from the senseless Iraq War that Lieberman helped lie us into; not a word about the hundreds of thousands more suffering from PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury. Nope. Instead, Lockhart adds a quote from Sal Liccione that "This whole war stuff really tangled him up." That's it? Just "war stuff" that "tangled him up"?
"Mr. Lieberman, as a senator, was best known for his centrist positions and outspokenness on issues of morality."
Is he serious? Lieberman a centrist? No mention of his rock-solid support for Wolfowitz, Bush, Cheney and the rest of the Neo-Cons' radical foreign policies that pushed us into Iraq? No mention of Lieberman's siding with the Far Right to kill the public option in 2009 by voting against cloture? No mention of Lieberman's support for the Far Right Sarah Palin? And just how "outspoken" was he on morality when he refused to condemn Linda McMahon's disgusting violent and sexist WWE business when she ran for Senate?
Think Progress does a far better job than the Connecticut press corps (naturally) in getting it right on Joe Lieberman. Here's are some of the things that our press corps really want swept under the rug:
Said progressive candidates would cower to terrorism: In an interview with Salon.com, Lieberman said, "I worry that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will have a hard time scampering back to assure people that they're prepared to take on the Islamist extremists and [any] other nation that threatens our security."
Suggested that Obama could be a Marxist: When asked if Obama is "a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case," Lieberman replied, "Well, you know, I must say that's a good question." [4/14/08]
Linked Obama's policies to socialism: "There are ways I suppose you can make an argument that there are some similarities between what Sen. Obama is talking about ('spreading the wealth') and classic, what used to be known as socialist theory...[but] I'm not going to use the name calling," Lieberman said. [10/23/08]
Praised radical right-wing radio hosts: "I'm real proud of you," Lieberman told Glenn Beck. "You're a good man," he said to Hugh Hewitt. [11/04/08; 5/21/08]
Feared a 60-seat Democratic majority: Lieberman made clear that he firmly opposes Democrats gaining 60 seats in the Senate, saying that he "fears" for the survival of the U.S. if Democrats break the filibuster threshold. [11/04/08]
Cited domestic priorities in supporting McCain: Lieberman claimed that the United States is going to "make progress on health care and the energy crisis and climate change" under a McCain administration. "John McCain is more ready to be president on foreign and domestic policy because of his extraordinary experience." [6/29/08; 8/03/08]
That is not the record of a "good and decent man." Good riddance.
Lamont Says Lieberman Beatable, but Won't Challenge him in '12 In the past quarter century only four people have won Democratic senate primaries in Connecticut: Chris Dodd, Joe Lieberman, Dick Blumenthal and Ned Lamont. Despite his inclusion in this elite club, it is highly unlikely Lamont will run for the senate in 2012.
During a taping of "Face the State with Dennis House," Lamont told me he has been "through the meat grinder" a couple of times, and wants someone else to run, calling the Democratic party bench, "impressive." It is an unlikely scenario, but I asked Lamont if no one else were to run, and the party encouraged him to jump in, what would he say? "I don't think so," Lamont told me. He also believes Senator Joe Lieberman is beatable.
SNIP
And Himes also told Dennis House that he would not challenge Lieberman in 2012....
This viewer has to hand it to Ned Lamont, who seemed move lively, energetic and full of ideas than Dan Malloy, who appeared almost somnolent at times.
Our field team is spread across Connecticut, and doing fantastic work. Over the last several weeks, they have recruited more than 3,000 volunteers, and together they have made more than 2 million calls and knocked on more than 150,000 doors.
And the results are showing. Despite two weeks of constant negative attacks by our opponent, Ned still leads in the recently released Quinnipiac poll 45-40, and Democratic voters believe Ned has the right positions on key issues, the right plan to turn the economy around, and the right character to be governor. And by a spread of 46-29, Democratic voters believe Ned is the best candidate to beat the Republicans in November and take back the governor's office for the first time in more than 20 years.
Every day, as each volunteer comes into our regional field offices, as we identify each voter, as we knock on each door and place each lawn sign, our momentum is growing:
In an effort to try something new, we went with a 3PM time slot, which historically means the audience was likely made up of more women than men.
August is a tough time for television because many folks are at the beach, on vacation, or doing something else than sitting on the couch.
The debate was the second most watched program from 3 to 4PM, beaten only by General Hospital. It was the most watched debate of the primary season, but hardly a ratings blockbuster. The debate was on par with the ratings for "Better Connecticut," which was pre-empted for two days for the debates.
General Hospital
WTNH
3.3 rating
9 share
Lamont vs Malloy Debate
WFSB
2.1 rating
6 share
Judge Brown
WCTX
1.4 rating
4 share
Tyra Banks
WCCT
1.4 rating
4 share
Ellen
WVIT
.7 rating
2 share
Wilkos
WTIC
.7 rating
2 share
Combined with the CPTV airing of the debate at 8PM, the debate got a total rating of 2.7.
SNIP
The NBC30 debate got a 2 share at the 7-8PM time slot, so the WFSB debate scored much better in the 3PM time slot, but overall, did slightly better than the NBC30 debate. As Dennis said, these ratings are not a blockbuster.
It will be interesting to see what happens on Primary Day.
Lamont v. Malloy Debate This viewer has to hand it to Ned Lamont, who seemed move lively, energetic and full of ideas than Dan Malloy, who appeared almost somnolent at times. What on earth was Malloy thinking about with that tie?
I'll admit there's still that deer-in-the-headlights issue with Lamont, but at least he's got something more to say than "hey, we did it in Stamford and we can do it in Hartford." They did it in Stamford with millions of dollars from state taxpayers, by the way.
I agree with Mr. Green. Ned appeared calmer and better prepared for this debate than the NBC30 one. He looked more in command. As I said in another post, Ned has the energy, actually more energy, than the Energizer Bunny, which is what made him a successful entrepreneur, but it doesn't work in a formal debate setting. He needed to rein in that energy and appear calm.
Before this debate, I had sent the Lamont campaign my critiques of Ned's NBC30 performance and a few others since that debate. Since formal debates fit the training of a lawyer, whose daily job is to debate, Ned needed his own frame to approach debates. After some thought, I realized that professors are also debaters and since Ned had been a teacher, he should envisions himself in the debates as a professor/teacher answering questions from his students.
I also suggested he give examples and explain them a bit of what he means after listing his policy positions and not to assume that people know what he is talking about when he mentions things, like reforming schools the way New Haven did. He did that today.
Overall, Ned Lamont struck the right balance between calm and enthusiasm in his debate performance today. This was the best I've seen him debate. He still needs practice and refining of his debate persona, but he appears to be on the right track.
Connecticut has developed a reputation for being one of the worst states in the country for operating a business. We have among the highest taxes in the country, the second-highest electricity costs, burdensome regulations and red tape. And we have a "culture" in the Legislature and in state agencies that is at the least unhelpful and non-responsive, and at the worst, openly hostile, to the operators of small businesses and big businesses alike.
Ned Lamont is a successful businessman. In a recent interview with The Register Citizen, he made it clear that "government can't grow your business," only create the right environment to allow business owners to grow and create jobs.
While Democratic leaders in Hartford are viscerally incapable from distraction by an activist social agenda, Ned Lamont presents a real-world view.
SNIP
Regarding paid sick leave, the editors say...
Lamont is getting hammered by primary foe Dan Malloy over a cautious view on paid sick leave, for example. But Lamont knows what a career politician like Malloy is deaf to - that putting yet another mandate on business at this critical juncture for Connecticut's economy would be insane.
And apparently editors of this Litchfield County paper have recognized the tone of Malloy's nasty campaign...
Politics, of course, "is a contact sport." But something about the tenor of Malloy's campaign this time around has left a lot of people with a bad taste. From the over-the-top nasty focus on how many debates Lamont is willing to have. To the sound bite smears that Malloy knows were raised - and debunked - in Joe Lieberman's campaign against Lamont four years ago.
In the latest Quinnipiac Poll, Ned Lamont enjoys a nearly double-digit lead among likely Democratic voters over rival Dan Malloy in his bid for the gubernatorial nomination.
Previous Q-Polls only questioned "registered Democrats", which is a larger pool and includes people who haven't bothered to vote for years. "Likely voters" are Democrats who have actually voted during the last few years, and are the ones who are most likely to drag themselves out of bed on August 10th and go down to their polling place.
So Lamont's current 9-point lead over Malloy in this poll is more likely reflective of his actual lead than previous polls that only questioned registered Dems. But you can't really compare the two polls when they questioned different sets of Democrats, so anyone who claims the race is tightening isn't working with valid data. Reporters who cover the political beat should know this difference.
I was wondering when the Lamont campaign would get around to smacking Malloy on his 5,000 job creation claim, and looks like with help from the Hartford Courant, they are taking on one of Malloy's supposed policy strengths.
Lamont Campaign Calls on Malloy to Take Down Misleading TV Ad New Haven, CT - In light of today's front-page Hartford Courant story revealing that Dan Malloy misrepresented his record of job creation as mayor of Stamford, Ned Lamont's campaign called on him to take down his new television ad that highlights Dan's claim that he created 5,000 jobs. Dan's claim ignores the fact that Stamford lost 13,000 jobs and unemployment increased by 58.7 percent during his tenure as mayor.
"Job creation is the single most pressing concern to the people of Connecticut in this economy, and I'm disappointed to see in today's Hartford Courant that Dan Malloy is inflating his record on this issue. Unfortunately, it's something that career politicians do all too often," said Lamont campaign manager Joe Abbey.
SNIP
I'd rate this as a fair attack since it attacks an issue or policy position of Malloy's and is not a personal attack against him.
Standing in the doorway of the pilot house of one of the high-speed passenger ferries owned by Cross Sound Ferry, the Democratic candidate for governor is peppering the company's owner and staff with questions, sometimes so quickly he seems barely able to wait for the answers.
How has the economic downturn hurt business?
What's your arrangement with the nearby casinos?
What would help trigger more work at struggling State Pier, just in front of the ferry's bow?
How much commercial traffic are you pulling off the highways and onto ferries bound to Long Island?
And finally, repeatedly, most importantly, this one: What do you need from me?
Lamont, the 2006 candidate for the U.S. Senate, is now locked in a competitive race for the Democratic nomination for governor. Like most of his rivals, he is eager to demonstrate his affinity for businesses, and an aptitude for creating and preserving jobs in a time of high unemployment and even higher unease among voters.
SNIP
Lamont seemed eager on the campaign trail Thursday, even as, it seemed, he had not yet mastered some of its cadences.
SNIP
Where conversations at campaign stops with local business often sound rote, Lamont seemed the enthusiastic interrogator of Wronowski and Richard MacMurray, Cross Sound's general manager.
SNIP
Wronowski said he hoped Lamont could use his background in business ... to improve the climate for employers. Cross Sound Ferry and the Wronowski family's booming shipyard business, which just received a $1.4 million federal grant to assist its expansion, employ around 400 people.
"One of the worst states in terms of business-friendly is Connecticut, and one of the worst cities at being business friendly in Connecticut, from my point of view, is New London," Wronowski said, in a reference to a fitful history of conflict with the municipal government here.
"So," he added, "we hope you win."
This is precisely the message Lamont has used in courting Democratic primary voters, who are hoping to choose a nominee who can appeal to business-minded voters in November, and bring the party its first gubernatorial win since 1986.
This is Lamont in his element.
A couple things that I have always liked about Lamont and that you rarely hear, if at all, from professional politicians is Lamont willing to listen and learn from people and his willingness to ask how he can improve his campaign. He's not a dictator; he's a leader who employs a partnership style of leadership. That style is what Connecticut needs right now to get out of our economic woes.
Create up to $500 in yearly utility bill savings for the average Connecticut family by negotiating long-term contracts with power generators and supporting weatherization programs at the state level.
Allow towns to offer property assessed clean energy (PACE) loans to home and business owners, enabling them to pay for clean energy improvements only as fast as the savings come in. Families will be able to go green without cracking open their wallets each month.
Make sure Connecticut workers get the skills they need to power our green economy by teaming with trade unions, vo-tech schools, and community colleges to expand green job training.
Make it easier for entrepreneurs to start or grow a green business, providing funding for promising early-stage companies and establishing a 24-hour, 1-800 line with an advocate who can help them start, fund, locate, staff, or expand.
Preserve our historic farmlands by providing incentives, such as those in the Community Investment Act, for families to keep their land as farms, rather than sell it to developers.
SNIP
Lamont is visiting New Haven and Torrington today announcing this plan.
Looks like Lamont has some coat tails or at least serves as an inspiration for guys, like Sestak, who battle the Establishment's morally questionable candidates. Looks like Obama and his team have a habit of endorsing the wrong candidates. I think the White House should learn the lessons of Lamont's challenge to corrupt Dem Establishment types, like former Democrat Joe Lieberman, but I fear they won't. When Obama stacked his Admin full of Clintonistas, they distorted his view of what Real America wants.
You can find the full text of my published op ed in The Killingly Villager on page A9. The Villager produces a PDF version of their entire paper for online use.
On May 3, 2010, the Ned Lamont and Mary Glassman campaigns announced a game changing decision.
"I am proud to be ... Ned Lamont's running mate," said Mary Glassman. "... although we come from different parts of our state, with different experiences - we share the same vision. We will create a partnership that will bring bold and creative changes to government - with a focus on helping businesses grow and creating jobs, supporting towns and cities in educating the next generation of children and helping everyone achieve their piece of the American dream."
Connecticut Democrats should be excited about this partnership because the Lamont-Glassman ticket offers for the first time in over 20 years a realistic chance at retaking the Governorship.. It's the perfect blend of an outsider and a government insider that will excite both the Democratic base and Independents this Fall.
Both Ned and Mary are relatively young. Ned is 56 and Mary is 51. Lamont brings an entrepreneur's perspective while Glassman brings her government experience, which will help Ned translate his vision and goals for getting Connecticut out of our economic woes into reality. The Lamont-Glassman ticket is the best Democratic combination that will have the endurance in both resources and in the candidates' energy and enthusiasm to battle the well funded Republican nominee from now thru Election Day, Nov. 2, 2010.
The previous 4 campaigns for governor have seen the Democratic nominee overmatched in fundraising by the Republican nominee, and that deficit has been a major factor in keeping the Democrats out of the governor's mansion. With resources that will keep pace with the Republican nominee, the Lamont-Glassman ticket will be able to effectively make the case that a progressive and Democratic vision is needed to get Connecticut out of its current economic problems. The Republican ideology of "shrink government until it can be drowned in a bathtub" has failed our nation, our state and offers no hope for ordinary citizens. Connecticut needs new leaders with a new vision to make government work for all its people.
SNIP
and you can read the rest of my op ed in the extended text area.
DiNardo hasn't committed yet to attending the reception for Reid, saying that there is a fundraiser for U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the same afternoon in New Haven.
So after derailing the public option, which would have been the most important public health innovation since Medicaid, campaigning virtually full-time for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, even after he had promised to work to elect a Democrat, after praising the far-right whack-job Sarah Palin, and implying that he supported Chris Shays for re-election against Democrat Jim Himes, not only is Harry Reid showing up with him in Greenwich, but state central committee chairwoman Nancy DiNardo is actually considering showing up.
GT's right-wing reporter Vigdor notes Reid's 33% approval rating, but conveniently neglects to mention Lieberman's own approval ratings:
Public Policy Polling in March put Lieberman's at 25%, with 67% disapproving. That put him third from the bottom in the entire Senate.
Quinnipiac had LIEberman at 39% approval for all Nutmeggers with 54% disapproving. Just 27% of Connecticut Democrats approved of Lieberman, while 67% disapproved.
Let's repeat that: two and a half times as many CT Democrats disapprove of Lieberman than approve of him. Or put another way, fully two-thirds of all of us Democrats can't stand him. So why is Harry Reid rubbing our noses in Lieberman? Again? And in Ned Lamont's hometown, Jim Himes' hometown (who had the courage to oppose Lieberman and strongly back Lamont early in 2006)? And Nancy DiNardo is actually considering attending?
Just what does it take to make people understand that we Democrats despise Joe Lieberman?
As I was looking for something else this morning, I found the following Word file which includes:
> A message sent to the DCCC and DSCC explaining why I support individual candidates, but won't contribute to their "umbrella" fund-raising efforts, AND
> A June '06 letter to Senator Schumer -- written by Robin Winick and me, and read by 31 Connecticut voters who endorsed its contents. It's small consolation that we were so on target. Given Lieberman's continuing outrages, and Ned's possible run for Governor, I thought it would be interesting to see what fell on deaf ears at the time.
The letter also is relevant to this week's close House vote on health care. While Republicans vote in lock step, Blue Dog Democrats continue to thumb their noses at meaningful reform. Why on earth should we support those who ignore their own constitutencies?
And aren't those of us who blog on and read My Left Nutmeg getting tired of the endless copy written about Joe? I apologize in advance for contributing to his obvious hunger for public attention -- however negative. . . .
It was 2 years ago today that we helped Ned Lamont overcome a 60 pt deficit to defeat Joe Lieberman by 4 pts in the Democratic Primary. Daily Kos salutes Lamont, the Kiss float, and those of us who volunteered for the Lamont campaign.
Here is an op-ed at the UCONN official newspaper, the Daily Campus, that talks of the Lamont/Kucinich event there back in April. FYI, to no ones surprise the author gets his facts wrong about the questioner mentioned in the commentary, and he tells liberals to "shut up"! http://www.dailycamp...
Of course there is a systematic suppression of political free speech at UCONN, including possibly fraudulent "noise complaints" against an October 2006 Ned Lamont/Wesley Clark rally from the UCONN School of Business. That "noise complaint" blocked the right of the UCONN Dems, rightfully according to the UCONN Student Union rules, to have music at later rallies with Ned Lamont and state Senate President Donald Williams. Of course, the UCONN School of Business has a clear bias:
The UCONN School of Business gets funding from the state budget, and maybe Donald Williams should know about their attacks and bias against his and the UCONN Dems' free speech!
You can send a note about these and other UCONN matters to the UCONN president Michael J. Hogan at:
president@uconn.edu
and Donald Williams at:
Williams@senatedems.ct.gov
the local Democratic state rep:
Denise.Merrill@cga.ct.gov
and the attorney general at:
attorney.general@po.state.ct.us
(Bob on Ned Lamont: I have to say this about Ned...after his defeat, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for him to say "the heck with it", and retire from the political arena. In fact, everyone would have totally understood if he did that...He's spending an incredible amount of time and personal effort to help us all get better government. He stands as a prime example of what a single person can do to change things. - promoted by Scarce)
Last year's Democratic candidate for senate Ned Lamont took some time to help raise funds for Kerri's campaign and endorse her as the next mayor of Milford. Also in the video, Kerri relates a story about why she's going through all the effort to help change things.
The discussion comes around to the Lamont-Lieberman 2006 Senate campaign, with a mention of CTKeith, the Kiss Float, and the national bloggers who helped rally the troops.
I haven't read the book, but some reviews are coming in, including this one by Armando Llorens of the U.K.'s Guardian. Llorens thinks Bai misses the boat on some key points, particularly where the power of the netroots originates -- bottom up or top down. He used the Ned Lamont - Joe Lieberman Senate race to make a point:
Bai's view of the netroots is also reflected in his discussion of the Lamont versus Lieberman primary contest of 2006. Thus, Bai speaks of Lieberman's "latent vulnerability" as demonstrated by the Connecticut activist and blogger Keith Crane (of "The Kiss" fame) as something to be recognized and exploited by the "real" decision makers in the netroots. His discussion of Matt Stoller's process of deciding to support the challenge to Lieberman is almost surreal, as if the involvement of Stoller, Jane Hamsher and even Daily Kos's Markos Moulitsas, was necessary to drive the challenge to Lieberman. I anticipated that this is how someone like Bai would see these events in this post on the eve of the Connecticut senate primary.
Not sure if the out-of-state bloggers were "necessary" but they did help.
As the reviews were coming in, Bai was liveblogging on the Huffington Post, mixing it up with the very same netroots he writes about. Along the way, this interesting exchange took place:
CAMERON: Given that Lieberman misrepresented his position on Iraq -- that "no one want[ed] to bring the troops home more than" he did -- do you think Connecticut voters are happy with sending him back to the Senate, and was it a mistake for the blogosphere to put so much weight behind Lamont?
BAI: Well, Cameron, I have no idea what Connecticut's voters think, beyond my mother, who likes Lieberman a lot less than she did five years ago. So that's a statistical sampling of one. But I don't at all think the bloggers made a mistake, given their aims. It's possible to lose and still win, as conservative groups like the NRA and the Club for Growth have proven for years. Sure, Lamont lost in the end, but as Markos likes to say, "No one wants to be the Joe Lieberman of 2008." If you can scare incumbents into thinking they might face a serious challenger, then you've gained some significant power over the party. And that's what happened for the bloggers and other progressive activists when Lamont won the primary.
I haven't read the book yet, but it's obvious that the impact of CT bloggers and Ned Lamont's candidacy continues to be widely felt.
MLN is powered by