Lamont, Running Away From What He Is

The Wednesday Times delivers a puff piece on Ned Lamont, who is trying to escape his roots:

GREENWICH, Conn., July 16 — Ned Lamont has become a political sensation in Connecticut by being a multimillionaire who wants the troops out of Iraq. But he would love, love to get people talking about other things than his wealth or the war.

Mr. Lamont breezed past Iraq the other night at a fund-raiser in Stamford for his campaign against Senator Joseph I. Lieberman. Instead he delved into Israel, jobs, Terri Schiavo, and his beef with Don Imus, the radio talk show host, who recently called Mr. Lamont a “bug-eyed pencil neck geek.”

“Imus is incredibly popular here in Fairfield County, so I have to deal with that,” Mr. Lamont said in an interview afterward. “People need to know the real me, not just the war and the money, if I’m going to pull this off.”

This notion that Lamont is more than just an anti-war candidate has been a staple amongst the Nedheads for months; here is Paul Krugman airing that Lamont talking point to a national audience in May. 

As to the desire of his internet backers to imagine that Lamont is about more than the war, presumably they would like to imagine that their creation is not simply a one-issue, one-trick pony.

And the Times reporter leaves no doubt about the strategy behind Lamont's attempt to broaden his appeal:

With national reporters now traveling here to cover him, and his unlimited advertising budget giving Mr. Lieberman agita, Mr. Lamont has concluded that he might just beat the senator in the Democratic primary on Aug. 8 — as long as voters see him as credible, not just as a single-issue rich guy trying to buy an election.

The problem is, what the voters see is exactly what Lamont is - a single-issue rich guy trying to buy the election.

Do you doubt me?  Let's flash back to the cold days of late autumn, when a credible opponent to Lieberman was a gleam in the eye of a few internet bloggers - per the Kos himself, MoveOn was so vexed by Lieberman's stance on the war that they were mulling the possibility of finding a champion to challenge him (Kos emphasized the war but also noted Lieberman's vexatious views on Social Security and Howard Dean).

Let's flash forward to Feb 19, 2006, when the NY Times first covers Ned Lamont as a possible challenger to Joe Lieberman:

Mr. Lamont, 52, is the product of some of the nation's most elite schools and a resident of one of the state's most buttoned-down towns, a self-made business executive with a pedigree to make Miles Standish blush.

Yet he is also a mince-no-words, unreconstructed left-of-center liberal who said he strongly believed that Senator Lieberman had drifted far to the right and had become too cozy with the White House, and that when it comes to the people who put the senator in office, fallen way out of touch.

With the Democratic primary in August just seven months away, Mr. Lamont may face an uphill battle against an incumbent, in a race in which he has little name recognition.

He announced the formation of the exploratory committee in January and hopes to officially declare his candidacy by the beginning of March.

  Yet he has already made his main message unmistakably clear: It's time to get out of Iraq.

''President Bush says we'll step back when the Iraqis step forward,'' Mr. Lamont said. ''I would turn that on its head and say, 'We start stepping back right now, and make the Iraqis step forward.' It's their war to win or lose.''

And what prompted Ned Lamont to think about entering the race?

Senator Lieberman, in an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal last November [link], argued for the president's ''staying-the-course'' strategy, presenting the challenge as a stark, if oversimplified, calculus: securing the country for 27 million Iraqis, and or handing it to 10,000 terrorists.

  Reading that article led to Mr. Lamont's ''eureka'' moment about running for the Senate.

Instead of just slamming down the newspaper in disgust, he decided to be proactive, picking up the phone to vent to the ''usual suspects.'' That list, he said, included political activists, union leaders and town officials, though he declined to be more specific.

''Everybody was sympathetic, and the general message was, 'If you feel so strongly about it, you do it,' '' he said about running against Senator Lieberman.

Well, fine - now he is doing something about it, and it is a wonderful country where a frustrated centi-millionaire can go out and buy a Senate seat when he feels the country needs his guidance to get itself back on track.

In addition to promoting the illusion that his race is about more than the war in Iraq, Lamont palmed another card in chatting with the Times.  Read this next bit and help me out - is Lamont lying, or just frighteningly out of touch?

He has been on a steep learning curve ever since he entered the race. Blogs, for instance, were news to him.

Blogs were news to him?  Did Lamont sleep through the entire Dean insurgency?  Did he really miss the bit where an unknown anti-war outsider raised money and attention on the internet and (nearly) upset the established party order?  I would have thought that someone in his position would have found the Dean experience to be quite instructive, Lamont being a nanti-war insurgent and all.  Frankly, I am shocked that the topic never came up in strategy sessions with his exploratory committee as they studied the possibilities of a Lamont campaign.  Is Lamont that out of touch?  Did he surround himself with incompetent advisers?  Or is he just, ahh, lying?

My guess?  It's just a little white lie and the Times is thrilled to play along (since the Times' core readership overlaps with the lefty blogs, the Times is pleased to denigrate their influence).  Why the lie?  Because Lamont gains nothing by highlighting the fact that a big chunk of his buzz and financial support come from potty-mouth out-of-staters.  Here is a story the Times overlooked:

70% of donors to Lamont's campaign are from out of state

Ned Lamont's primary campaign against U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman has rallied plenty of angry Connecticut Democrats eager to unseat the 18-year incumbent for his unwavering support of the Iraq War.

But a list of campaign donors shows there are hundreds of nonresidents seeking Lieberman's ouster, from celebrities such as Barbra Streisand to an ex-"Baywatch"-lifeguard-turned-activist to a California strawberry farmer and craft-store owner in Illinois.

With three weeks to go until the primary Ned Lamont, the internet-fueled anti-war candidate, is trying to pretend he is something he is not - a candidate with broad appeal in Connecticut and broad appeal on a range of issues.  How many people will he fool?

THIS JUST IN:  The Times finally gets to the "70% out of state" story but they deliver it as a Liberman basher.  Could they be not-so-secretly rooting for Lamont?  Of course they are! 

But that is only partly because the Timesmen are earnest liberals; the rest of their slant is driven by the possiblity of an exciting three way race this fall, if they can only get Lamont over the hump in August.  Tha alternative, a Lieberman primary victory, assures utter tedium in the Connecticut Senate race this fall.

 

Comments

[Pete]

Open Secrets notes that Lieberman gets close to 80% of his contributions from non-residents.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/07/18/in_connecticut_lamont_relies_on_outofstate_support.html

I've heard so many Bush supporters say that the 2004 election vindicated the Iraq war. Now that there is an election on which the clear distinction is on the Iraq war position of two candidates, the same people are crying foul.

[Freaknik]

Since you are basically a rather timid and boring Republican moderate, why do you care what happens in the Democratic primary?

[ed]

Hmmmm.

I'm not crying foul.

Lieberman wins, the Kossacks look like idiots for the 21st time.

Lieberman loses, the Kossacks succeeded in eliminating the only sane voice in the Democratic party.

Either way, I win.

[Rick Ballard]

Except Lieberman won't be eliminated from the November ballot. By November CT voters will have Lamont figured out and Lieberman won't owe anyone anything. He might even be able to trade some Independent support for a chairmanship - if the Reps want to bother.

He can sure afford the Kosola - that's what counts.

[topsecretk9]

turns out Ned has $50,000 worth of stock in...drum roll please...Halliburton, to which the left-o-kids say?

This is not a big deal unless we make it a big deal...

[Tom Maguire]

Now that there is an election on which the clear distinction is on the Iraq war position of two candidates, the same people are crying foul.

Whose crying foul? And since you seem to agree with me (and Early Ned) that this primary is a referendum on the war, do you also agree that Late Ned is being a bit disingenuous?

[clarice]

Let's put it this way, if Lamont wins the primary the NYT will credit his war stance. If he loses, it'll be for some other reason.

[Pete]

I'd be hard pressed to find a politician who was not disingenuous (and IMO Bush takes the cake on this topic). I am sure that those opposed to Lieberman can come up with their analysis of how Lieberman is disingenuous.

The thing that strikes me most about Lieberman is how amiable he was when debating Cheney and how combative he was when debating Lamont. I'm not from CT btw.

Elections are never about one topic, and it would be a mistake to say that the CT election is a referndum on Iraq. However everyone should welcome the clear difference in the Iraq stand of the two candidates. While Lieberman may ultimately win the primary or the election, there is no doubt that his Iraq stand has hurt him.

[topsecretk9]

Why the lie? Because Lamont gains nothing by highlighting the fact that a big chunk of his buzz and financial support come from potty-mouth out-of-staters.

BINGO! TM

that old Rape Gurney Joe campaign slogan I see has drifted softly to the wayside...shades of the Dean bus

[Pete]

Talking of Iraq, did anyone note that the Iraqi PM denounced the Isreali attack on Lebanon. I had earlier predicted on JOM that in the long run Iraq will find more commonality with its neighbors, especially Iran.

Your tax dollars at work.

[clarice]

I rather assume that was perfunctory and for domestic reasons in a majority Shia country. OTOH if Saddam were still in power, how much more complicated this chess game would be, I think..

[topsecretk9]

Where's the famous nuance?

[call2biz.gxs]

http://www.call2biz.com
How about launching your store on Call2biz.com with one of your smartest bets, I bet you your hot items will be sold out soon. With its protecting system, your business interest will be guard against those business scams, you wonder like me where to start your business on Call2biz.com, the Call2biz.com is your source of detail information need to do it. We would help you and marketing your products without any charges of fees! You will save up to 100% and earn more easy money on Call2biz.com. with a only computer and phone at your home, you can, while being successful, enjoy this easy-money-making experience online. A homebased business will begin at Call2biz.com.

[syn]

The one thing which turns me away from the Democrat Party is the constant double standard mnaintained.

They say they are always looking out for the little guy by going after the rich white guy but they always elect rich white guys.

They say they are looking out for minorities but they always keep minorities at the back of the bus.

They say they are against government corruption but they take millions from Hollywood and George Soros while writing the news for PBS, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN.

They say they support America but they always slam her as hegemonic imperialist when she is at war against radical Islam then stand out in front of the UN declaring their undying support for Israel but will throw out a pro-war Jewish Democrat for a rich guy who is against war.

It is no wonder the moonbats are rabidly insane.

[noah]

I hope Lieberman loses. He's just another liberal that obstructs, obstructs, obstructs. I can't stand his pious bullshit.

[syn]

Obstructs what?

The liberal desire to eliminate America and Israel or just eliminate America so that the Democrats can pander to the Jewish vote?

Pious bullshit is hearing Hillary CLinton and Chuck Schummer stand in front of the UN declaring their undying support for Israel in order to garner the Jewish vote then head to DC to rag against America's determination to defend herself while bringing hope to the people of Iraq.

[Dwilkers]

OK off topic but here we go again.

Glenn Greenwald sock-puppet?

[Jane]

>Elections are never about one topic, and it would be a mistake to say that the CT election is a referndum on Iraq.

Except that this time it is. Lamont brings nothing else to the table.

[Jeff]

Wow, this is some surprisingly crude analysis, in about five different ways. Sure, Lieberman's stance on the war is important, sure it was the thing that pushed Lamont. That doesn't mean that's all he is. (Note the difference in tenses.) And ask yourself why you don't see credible primary challenges to other war supporters even in blue states. The simple fact of the matter is, as I would have thought you would recognize, Lieberman occupies a unique position among Democrats, and what makes him unique is not his position the war, and its his uniqueness that gave resonance to Lamont's challenge, regardless of the fact that the war - which is, after all, the central event of our times - may have been the thing that pushed him to actually make those calls. To say nothing of the fact that all candidates round themselves out as they go. Indeed, most candidates get into campaigns for no substantive reason at all, but just to get in power, and then they figure out where they stand.

And I don't get all the harping on millionaire candidates running for senate by lots of self-funding. I don't like it either. But take it up with the campaign finance people, not the candidates who are pursuing the most viable way to challenge powerful incumbents who have the playing field tilted toward them in numerous ways.

[boris]

harping on millionaire candidates running for senate by lots of self-funding

Tit for tat.

Doesn't actually bother me but the CFR hypocrits have it coming.

[syn]

SO Democrats are against America defending herself yet will stand in front of the UN declaring their support for Israel's right to defend herself.

This weekend the anti-war brigade (aka totalitarian collectivists) is holding a teach-in in NYC on how to deal with the anti-war movement's rise in anti-semitism within the group (seems anti-war Jews are unhappy with the anti-war brigade's anti-semitism). Next week the anti-war brigade will be sending out to the Democrats the talking points which will include supporting Israel at war BUT continue remind the Protestant and now happy Jewish antiwar minions that the Evangelicals are evil because of gay marriage, rich white males are oppressive, Republicans steal votes, Bush hates black people so he caused a big hurricane which created cannibalism, and that people will cured by using discarded human embryos.

Like I said before, no wonder the moonbats a rabidly insane.

[richard mcenroe]

This is not news. Here in California, "our" Senator Boxer gets much if not most of her campaign funding from out of state donors. I would not be surprised in the least to find this is common in blue states nationwide; the "party of the little man" is the toybox of a tight clique of moneyed, self-appointed 'elites'. Okay, and ME oil money, for multicultural diversity.

[clarice]

Lamont is going to lose the primary. How do I know? Bill CLinton is coming to campaign for him, and I doubt he'd do that, if he felt Lieberman would lose.

[syn]

Actually, it will be interesting to watch how Socialist are going to show their support for both Jews and Muslims. How are they going to have posters captioned Death to Zionist Occupation with Defend Israel's Right to Exist at the same protest?

No doubt the rhetoric towards Evangelicals is going to be ramped up a notch.

[Freaknik]

Wrong Clarice. If Lieberman wasn't going to lose, Hillary would campaign for him.

This is just the Clintons hedging their bets.

But I do love it that all you Republicans are pulling for Clinton's boy.

[danking70]

Lieberman Losing Ground in Senate Race

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/20/D8IVOEKG0.html

Sen. Joe Lieberman, under fire from activists in his own party, has lost ground to his challenger and is in a statistical dead heat for the Democratic nomination, a new poll released Thursday shows.

Businessman Ned Lamont led Lieberman, 51 percent to 47 percent, among likely Democratic voters in the latest Quinnipiac University poll.

I don't like how this race is closing up.

[verner]

I agree Clarice. Clinton never does a thing that isn't self serving.

And as for Lieberman. Considering what's currently going on in the ME, I hope a few dem voters come to their senses.

Invading Iraq has given us a firm foothold in the region, and has eliminated Saddam from the mix.(Now we only have to deal with two members of the axis of evil). There may still be "terrorists" in Iraq, but they are constantly on the run, and not able to do much more than terrorize the Iraqi population--not exactly a good PR move.

If you'll notice today, even a Saudi sheik, has issued a fatwah against Hezbollah.

The left needs to get real. As Newt said, we are in WWIII, a global conflict with Islamofascism. It will likely get much worse. But anyone who thinks George Bush started it is a fool.

I expect a major upswing for Lieberman in the polls within the next few weeks.

[Jeff]

Doesn't actually bother me but the CFR hypocrits have it coming.

This is a joke, right? Surely you understand that if someone objects to our current campaign finance regime because, among other things, it props up an incumbent protection racket, that person will tend to look on rich, self-funded incumbent-challengers as an unfortunate second-best course for challenging that racket while playing by the rules as they exist. If the rules were different, it would be a different matter. But the rules aren't different, so playing by them means that a rich candidate is one of the few feasible ways of challenging ensconsed incumbents.

But maybe you really do enjoy sticking it to the left, in your own mind at least, more than thinking things through.

[lonetown]

Liebermans case simply demonstrates that pandering breeds contempt among partisans.

What amazes me is how little credit he gets for his solid liberal voting record. That has no resonance.

I voted for him as the best of two evils when he beat Weicker, was repulsed by the 2000 campaign and find them both rather yesterday now.

As an ultra conservative I'll probably vote for Lieberman if hes an independant because I like to parse the Democrats into their little bins of banality.

[SteveMG]

Michael Barone pointed out once (and I can't dig up the source and the exact quote) that incumbents don't lose because of one issue but that they usually get in trouble due to one issue.

By that he meant that critics of an incumbent usually emanate from a series of decisions or actions of that politician over his career. A vote here, a statement there. But this inchoate or disparate opposition isn't powerful enough to unseat that candidate until one larger policy dispute allows them to center or focus their anger.

Take away that larger issue - Iraq - and, if one embraces the Barone argument, Lieberman wouldn't be in trouble. And according to the latest poll, he's in big trouble (primary-wise).

SMG

[SteveMG]

incumbents don't lose because of one issue but that they usually get in trouble due to one issue.

Y'know, I think I have my Barone backwards. And if he for some reason visits here, (1) get a life and (2) my apologies.

Incumbents lose because of many issues but get in trouble because of one issue.

That's it. An incumbent over the years creates opposition within his party because he doesn't always follow the party line. He may be in trouble because of a vote here or a statement there. But he won't lose his seat until one larger issue focuses that opposition into a single entity.

SMG

[Specter]

Welll....I am from CT and I can say that Ned is running a single issue campaign. For those of you who don't live here it is completely about Joe's stance on the war and tries to tie that to people's current dislike of Bush. Neddy has made a token attempt to talk about "Universal Healthcare", but that is a loser from the get-go.

But, according to the Hartford Courant (who is for Neddy boy), Lamont has pulled even in the polls of likely voters. Of course, they don't publish the poll or the demographics, so who actually knows how they asked the question.

The problem for Lamont is that Lieberman has a tremendous amount of support from both moderate Democrats and Republicans. When the Courant asked how people would vote if Joe ran as an independent the answer was this:

The poll shows him leading a three way race with the support of 51 percent of likely voters, compared to 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for Republican Alan Schlesinger.

Lamont doesn't stand a chance in the long run. Too bad.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'The thing that strikes me most about Lieberman is how amiable he was when debating Cheney and how combative he was when debating Lamont.'

Which tells a lot about the differences between Lamont and Cheney.

[Specter]

Oh...BTW - for those of you arguing that Clinton would support Lieberman if they wanted him to win, Hillary isn't coming here, but Bill is. Not sure if that is good for Joe or not though....LOL

Lieberman also has the backing of the major unions here. So we'll see what happens during the primary. Ned has been running an add that say, in essence, "Please Joe, no matter who wins the primary, can't we agree to back the Democratic party candidate?" He is a bit concerned.

[Jane]

Spector,

Has Lamont taken a position on the Israeli-Lebanon conflict?

I'm in central MA so I get Lamont ads on TV and it's all anti-Bush stuff so far.

[Herbert M. Smith]

What is your point in going after Ned Lamont as if there were some scandal or something? Why don't you simply compare him to Lieberman and help your readers sort out the differences.

Why are you always trying to find evidence of bias in the NY Times? Yes, it's a liberal paper. Get over it.

Of course the guy is rich. He's a successful entrepreneur. Good for him.

Yes, he's agains the war in Irag, but of course he wants to be seen as a more well-rounded candidate. What's wrong with that?

Ned Lamont has his strengths and weaknesses like we all do. But at least he's sticking his neck (and wallet) out to give the voters of Connecticut a choice this August. I'm a Republican, so I can't vote in the primary, but my hat is off to him for doing the voters a favor. We should have more citizens like Ned Lamont.

[Rick Ballard]

WWOT - Does anyone care to venture as to whether Greenwald used a nom de sockpuppet in comments here at JOM? I know he's come in and spit up on his own but the current fun highlighted at Protein Wisdom (among many other places) make me wonder.

Glenn's gonna hafta rub a little Kosola oil on the tender places after this.

[Specter]

OT - Glenn site is a hoot. I was over there and talking about his sock puppetry and all they can do is say, "But what does it matter? He still is an intelligent guy." LOL Add to that Glenn's excuse is that someone using his shared IP posted all of those posts. Gawwwwwd...what a bunch of losers.

Jane - haven't heard a word about Lamont's stand on the current problem. Naw...his drum continues to roll on anti-Bush and Iraq. That's it. What is really scary is that so many people form their opinions solely on TV ads. Very frightening.

[Extraneus]

I don't get the principle behind this whole thing. First, the Democrats jockeyed for the original AUMF vote, just to make sure they were on record as supporting military action in Iraq and wouldn't get painted the color they got painted after the first Gulf War. Then, they manufactured the dishonest "Bush lied about WMDs" accusation, which all but the dumbest of them know is a lie itself. I get the point of that, though, which was to weaken Bush somehow, and the calculation was made -- just like it was during Vietnam -- that the resulting political advantage would be worth our loss in Iraq, the attendant slaughter of thousands of innocents in the aftermath, etc. The thing I don't get is the venom directed at Lieberman. Sure, he's the only one left who hasn't sold out to the get-Bush-at-any-cost political strategy, but even if just to hedge their bets, you'd think they'd want to be able to say they still have a few hawks in the party, considering the larger issue of impending national elections. So what that Lieberman hasn't signed onto a political strategy? There must be an underlying principle I'm missing. What is it? They care so much about the American servicemen we've lost? We know that isn't it. The kiss?

I don't get it.

[Specter]

Jane,

From Lamont's site:

At this critical time in the Middle East, I believe that when Israel’s security is threatened, the United States must unambiguously stand with our ally to be sure that it is safe and secure. On this principle, Americans are united.

But for the first time since Israel’s founding, the United States has lost influence and the diplomatic initiative in the region. We can, and must, do better.

Unlike previous administrations – Republican and Democratic – President Bush has embraced the wrong priorities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He missed a great opportunity to exercise constructive leadership at the time when Mahmoud Abbas became president of the Palestinian Authority. And he broke with decades of bipartisan understanding that it was the American responsibility to hold down active hostilities in the Middle East so that talking and diplomacy would be possible.

It goes on here, but the gist is that Bush made a wrong decision in this conflict. Nothing about Joe Lieberman. Just more of "Bush is bad". Fits right in with his continuing campaign.

[Paul Zrimsek]

But for the first time since Israel’s founding, the United States has lost influence and the diplomatic initiative in the region. We can, and must, do better.

Israel was founded sometime after 1979? Nu, so who knew?

[Patton]

""What is your point in going after Ned Lamont as if there were some scandal or something?""

Herbert, you must know the history. Look at Lamonts backers and all they have said in the past and then look how Ned betrays their beliefs and they excuse it for one reason..they have BDS.

Google Jane Hamsher and Haliburton and see how crazy she is on the subject. Now we learn Ned Lamont was one of Cheneys bosses.

[noah]

Except for occasionally making sense on foreign policy, Lieberman is a reliable vote for the Senate Democrat caucus' only weapon...the filibuster (actual filibusters are quite rare but the threat is ubiquitous and it takes days to arrange for a vote to get a vote!).

If not for this tactic we would no doubt be building nuclear power plants and drilling in ANWR, as well as many other rational things.

For this reason there is not a nickel's worth of difference between Lieberman and Lamont...from my perspective anyway.

[Patton]

What is going on with the left and Lieberman is the same thing that is going on in Spain:

In Spain, anti-Semitism is new leftist trend

Spanish Jews knew there were hard times ahead. Prime Minister Zapatero has not disappointed them..

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3278919,00.html

[topsecretk9]

--Does anyone care to venture as to whether Greenwald used a nom de sockpuppet in comments here at JOM?--

Maybe, I think if he does it's not so much to toot his own horn but, not to be seen by his followers engaging too much with those beneath him...wingnut peons.

The guy is a hysterical, knee-jerk reacting trip.

[topsecretk9]

--Google Jane Hamsher and Haliburton and see how crazy she is on the subject. Now we learn Ned Lamont was one of Cheneys bosses.--

I have to admit this one interests me.

I could care less if Lamont has Halliburton stock (hey i hope he has WallMart too!), but it's the left who defined Hallibuton chiefly responsible for the war and defined Hallibuton as fundamentally evil (and DON'T even bring up Cheney and Halliburton)

and here, when faced with the reality their guy invests in Halliburton -- i.e. supporting the war under their own terms-- it's a distraction, it doesn't matter, it's only a story if we make it a big deal

Which really just goes to show how hollow and what a bunch of BS the whole Hallibuton trashing is and how hollow and full of BS they really are.

[boris]

Doesn't actually bother me but the CFR hypocrits have it coming.

Jeff: "This is a joke, right?"

Not this time. The proponents of CFR are the ones who bitch the loudest about self financing. Proponents of CFR are mostly on the left. A self financed candidate from the left should not expect a free pass from the right on the issue. After all, it's not the financing .... IT"S THE HYPOCRISY.

[Freaknik]

If proponents of CFR are mostly on the left, how in the hell did it get through two Republican congresses, signed into law by Bush (who was too scared to veto it) and upheld by the majority Republican appointed Supreme Court?

[Gary Maxwell]

I am pulling for Ned Lamont. You could say I am feeling sorry for Kos and his oh for life batting average (and you would be wrong). No its a lot simpler than that. Once the primary is history and its quite clear that the lunatics do in fact control the asylum of the Democrat party, and then Lieberman cruises to an incredibly easy win in the general election as an Independent, the lunatics will be enraged. And everyone will hear all about it, in full technicolor language. And since it will be clear that the far left cant even run competitively in one of the bluest of blue states, they will be shown to be the losers that they are. It would be a good thing for our democracy for the Democrats to field some candidates that I would consider voting for, at least once in awhile. There aint many now, and thats not a good thing for our democracy.

On Greenwald, its amazing how close all those glowing comments are about the fabulousness of one Glenn Greenwald are. Think of exactly how large of sense of inadequacy he must have, to resort to pumpinng himself up with sock puppetry on multiple blogs. The time commitment alone means he has no life. The Wizard of Oz said "pay no attention to that man in the booth, I am the all powerful Oz." Very appropriate.

[noah]

Freaknik...not being a Republican can't speak for them but CFR (McCain-Feingold for example) is almost uniformly opposed by conservatives who mostly favor just full disclosure of donors.

The Left and Democrats on the other hand mostly favors going even further...witness the calls for reinstituting the fairness doctrine which would have the effect of silencing talk radio.