Check C-SPAN, if you don’t have access to CT stations.
“Stay the course: that’s not a winning strategy in Iraq, and it’s not a winning strategy for America.”
“A few things we gotta do. First, we’ve got a health care system in this country that’s broken…. It’s time we fixed health care.”
Ned – you won. Smile, for God’s sake!
“63 lobbyists for every congressman in Washington DC. Let’s send some leaders to Washington DC to start fighting for the common good. It’s time to fix Congress.”
“One more number. We have 132,000 of our bravest troops stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war in Iraq, and I say it’s high time we bring them home to a hero’s welcome.” [Crowd chanting “bring them home.”]
“It’s time we fixed George Bush’s failed foreign policy.” Quotes JFK: we never negotiate from fear, but we should never be afraid to negotiate. “We deal with the rest of the world with respect.”
“That’s the America that CT voted for this evening. I want to say one thing in all seriousness. I want to thank Senator Lieberman for this campaign…. And I’m hoping over the course of the next few days that the party is going to stick together, and we’re going to go forward united. [good luck with that. –ed.] When I got in this race about 8 months ago, it was kind of a dream. blah blah blah.” Thanks the netroots.
Ned thanks Tom Swan – huge round of applause and cheers.
“I am proud to carry the banner of the Democratic nominee for US Senate…. My name is Ned Lamont, and I approve this message.”
Heh. Clever closing line. Still, gotta say this wasn’t the best victory speech I’ve ever seen. Whatever – a HUGE win for Lamont, for the netroots, and for the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
is trying not to cry. Which may explain his lack of smile.
<
p>
I am dumbfounded over this win, but it ain’t over with yet.
I went down to Connecticut this weekend to work for Joe Lieberman. I canvassed, passed out flyers for Joe, made phone calls, and attended rallies. I encountered a good deal of hostility from many. The big thing I noticed was that people didn’t like Joe, but they didn’t know Ned Lamont. Joe is still in this race as long as he has the money to educate/propaganda-ize against Lamont as he still is an unknown. Lamont’s speech tonight was full of obvious statements…of course we need to fix health care, of course we need to work with our allies. But he didn’t make a case for what exactly he would do differently. Ultimately, CT will vote for an experienced Senator with his own ideas, not those of the blogosphere, and a Senator who stands for his ideas not only against everyone elses. This close win is the result of knee jerk opposition to a Democrat who can admit when Bush is right for once and a group that wants to pull the Democrats back to Henry Wallace and George McGovern. If the democrats of CT can’t nominate a moderate incumbent in 2006, the chances of a moderate surviving the democratic primaries may not be good. That being said, CTs closed primary system was beneficial to Lamont as it boxed out independents from voicing their opinion without changing registration. Too bad that the coup by Lamont may drive many out of the party. If there is no room for foreign policy hawks in the Democratic Party, it runs the risk of becoming the 21st centurey Whigs, a regional party, unable to compete in the South, Midwest, and the blue collar cities. LiberalDemocrats lost; the failed Progressivism of 48 and 72 won.
A majority or plurality of Americans are now against this war in almost every poll you can find.
<
p>
How does opposition to the war translate to becoming electorally irrelevant?
<
p>
And, I might add, there are plenty of hawks left in the Democratic party. Hillary, for one, will crush her primary opponent.
<
p>
If Lieberman had not promised to run an Independent campaign, he would have won this primary. That was the difference.
A plurality disagrees with the conduct. There is no consensus for immediate troop withdrawal.
<
p>
Second, Lamont and other progressives’ current cause of immediate troop withdrawal is indicative of an isolationist foreign policy, one that has been rejected by voters since 1948. Lamont and Dean propose an America held hostage to the UN before taking decisive action, an America skeptical of military intervention, a US that would not engage human rights abuses in Bosnia and Kosovo.
<
p>
Second, Hilary has been forced to back off her hawkish stance on Iraq. She now states that she is in favor of troop withdrawals and calls her vote to go to war a mistake. Lieberman was targeted in part because he stood behind his well founded belief that Saddam Hussein was a brutual dictator with no regard for human rights or liberal principles and had the capability to develop WMD and generate instability in the middle east. Hillary will crush her primary opponent and may pull through the nomination in 08 because of her money. Still, the Democratic Party’s rejection of Lieberman reflects a party that has rejected Truman Liberals for Wallace Progressives
Last paragraph: 4.
<
p>
A poll of Lamont supporters a few days ago showed that a minority of people were against Lieberman solely because of the war.
<
p>
Lieberman ran a loser campaign. He whined, he whinged, he made false accusations (the so-called DoS attack Lamont used on Lieberman’s web page was really Lieberman hosting his website on a $15-month server that crashed). His stance on publically funded Catholic Hospitals and birth control didn’t meet CT standards for woman’s rights.
<
p>
I didn’t dislike Joe Lieberman before about three months ago. Since then, he’s acted like “Holy Joe”. He doesn’t own the seat — the people of Connecticut do. He’s now shown that he doesn’t respect the Democratic voters and in my mind, he’s no longer a Democrat.
<
p>
Iraq was about WMDs and al-qaida, remember? Until there was no WMDs, and it was shown that it wasn’t a terrorist breeding ground at the time. Now, there’s still no WMDs, it is breeding terrorists, and tUSA is losing American lives, billions of dollars, and global trust daily. When Lieberman supported the invasion, he didn’t caveat it with “Hussein is a bad bad man” nor did he say “and so are the leaders of Iran, Syria, Lybia, North Korea, assorted African nations, yadda yadda, and promise to go after them next.”
<
p>
Lieberman was percieved as being close to Bush. That’s not being moderate, and there’s no evidence that it helped the good people of Connecticut.
I would like to see the link to that poll. All I know was from standing out on constitution plaza, most anti-Lieberman people fed me reasons why they were against Lieberman, not for Lamont. The biggest reason was Iraq. I would appreciate the link to that poll though in case I did get the wrong impression.
<
p>
Yes, Lieberman’s campaign did not really get off the ground until about a week ago. I don’t understand though why you accuse him of “whining”. Was Joe supposed to go quietly? Joe came back from a 13 point deficit to lose my a couple of points on election day. He wasn’t overwhelmingly rejected by the people of CT and surely won’t be in the general election with his high support among independents and GASP Republicans.
<
p>
By the way what are “CT standards for women’s rights”. Not trying to be snide, just want to know what you meant.
<
p>
On the topic of Iraq, you can’t blame Joe (or any Senator who vote for the war) for the misleading intelligence provided by the Bush Administration implicating that Iraq had WMD. That being said, Lieberman had always supported toppling Saddam based on his inhumane, immoral rule. Lieberman voted for the first Gulf War, the Iraqi Liberation Act (signed by Clinton in 98, making regime change an eventuality), and the resolution authorizing the use of force in 2003. Lieberman has also been hawkish on issues ranging from Syria and Iran, where he has pressed for more sanctions, and also Darfur where he has supported legislation to combat genocide. Progressives are still debating whether the war was just; however, Senator Lieberman has accepted the consequences of our decision and wants to finish and mend Iraq’s reconstruction. He has been a constant critic of SecDef Rumsfeld, calling for his resignation in 2003 and decried the CPA for staying too long, and its lack of reliance on the Iraqis or the UN.
<
p>
Lieberman has not been afraid to cross the aisle on legislation. And when he has, he has saved CT a naval base and earned it record amounts of transportation funding.
<
p>
Senator Lieberman stood for something. What did Lamont?
I would like to see the link to that poll. All I know was from standing out on constitution plaza, most anti-Lieberman people fed me reasons why they were against Lieberman, not for Lamont. The biggest reason was Iraq. I would appreciate the link to that poll though in case I did get the wrong impression.
<
p>
Here’s a poll for you: * The war was certainly relevant * Lieberman’s percieved closeness to Bush was too. * Also relevant was Joe’s indy run rumors.
<
p>
This wasn’t the poll to which I was referring initially (gave up looking for the link) but you get the message. While this was a litmus test for Lieberman, it wasn’t just Iraq. Connecticut Democrats want a partisan Democrat — one who will help control the very powerful GOP president and congressional majority — Lieberman wasn’t getting it done.
<
p>
Yes, Lieberman’s campaign did not really get off the ground until about a week ago. I don’t understand though why you accuse him of “whining”. Was Joe supposed to go quietly?
<
p>
No, I expected him to put his head down and work. I didn’t expect him to claim that his crappy website hosting was a DoS attack (total bullcrap, and as others have posted, I too can’t wait for the FBI report). I didn’t expect him to constantly denegrate Lamont supporters — who are Democrats — along the process. There were countless news clips where he wouldn’t give folks the time of day, but would turn around and complain to a reporter about these crazy bloggers.
<
p>
Joe came back from a 13 point deficit to lose my a couple of points on election day. He wasn’t overwhelmingly rejected by the people of CT and surely won’t be in the general election with his high support among independents and GASP Republicans.
<
p>
Hats off to him for doing better in the election than the polls suggeseted. While he wasn’t overwhelmingly rejected by the Democrats of CT, he was rejected by an overwhelming number of Democrats in CT.
<
p>
How will he do in the general? Hard to say. It may depend on Lieberman’s behavior, and whether or not he pledges to caucus with the Dems for a full six years. It will obviously also depend on his ability to build “a party” and its infrastructure quickly, and on the Democratic support for Lamont nationally ($$$, endorsements, etc).
<
p>
By the way what are “CT standards for women’s rights”. Not trying to be snide, just want to know what you meant.
<
p>
I lived in Connecticut for 18 years, and still visit friends and family multiple times each year. In my experience, Connecticut believes that contraceptives, particularly for rape victims, are well within women’s rights. Lieberman opposed a State bill that would have prevented hospitals from refusing to dispense the “morning after” plan B contraceptives for rape victims because he argued that catholic hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for “principled reasons” shouldn’t be forced to do so, and he made the rather callous (and in many parts of the State untrue statement) that “[i]n Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital”
<
p>
On the topic of Iraq, you can’t blame Joe (or any Senator who vote for the war) for the misleading intelligence provided by the Bush Administration implicating that Iraq had WMD.
<
p>
No, but I can blame them for (a) being complicit when Afghanistan and al-qaida were clearly more relevant to immediate national security, and (b) for constantly yielding the president too many Congressional powers in the process, and also for (c) not going bloody crazy apeshitwhen it turned out there were no WMDs were fiction and we were losing so much in Iraq.
<
p>
That being said, Lieberman had always supported toppling Saddam based on his inhumane, immoral rule. Lieberman voted for the first Gulf War, the Iraqi Liberation Act (signed by Clinton in 98, making regime change an eventuality), and the resolution authorizing the use of force in 2003. Lieberman has also been hawkish on issues ranging from Syria and Iran, where he has pressed for more sanctions, and also Darfur where he has supported legislation to combat genocide.
<
p>
I don’t disagree that Lieberman is a hawk, but I think that many CT Dems have grown rather cynical about his seemingly opportunistic and inconsistent stances on war issues. Neither money nor lives are being exhausted in proportion to the security needs of tUSA or urgency of that particular foreign policy problem, and hawkish Lieberman hasn’t done enough to correct those problems.
<
p>
Progressives are still debating whether the war was just;
<
p>
Nonesense. Progressives decided the war in Iraq was unjust a long time ago.
<
p>
however, Senator Lieberman has accepted the consequences of our decision and wants to finish and mend Iraq’s reconstruction. He has been a constant critic of SecDef Rumsfeld, calling for his resignation in 2003 and decried the CPA for staying too long, and its lack of reliance on the Iraqis or the UN.
<
p>
I’m not arguing that an immediate pull out of Iraq is the best thing, nor am I arguing with Lieberman’s wartime policies in general.
<
p>
Lieberman has not been afraid to cross the aisle on legislation. And when he has, he has saved CT a naval base and earned it record amounts of transportation funding.
<
p>
He also * voted for cloture on Alito and Roberts * Fought for the deregulation of the accounting industry in the 1990s, which set the stage for the Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, etc. * Voted for cloture on the bankruptcy bill. * Voted for a free trade agreement with Oman, a nation known for preventing working rights and unions. * Supported the recent energy bill which helped Exxon/Mobil but didn’t do much for consumers. * Supported Congressional intervention during the Terri Schivo fiasco. * Voted to confirm AG Gonzalez, as well as Brownie and Condi.
<
p>
He can’t take any more credit for saving the naval base than can Dodd, or any of the five members of the House (including three GOPs who probably had more re-election pull than Lieberman) or the GOP governor of CT.
<
p>
So, I don’t think the voters of CT saw his pros of bipartisanship outweigh his refusal to check GOP ripoffs.
<
p>
Senator Lieberman stood for something. What did Lamont?
<
p>
What did Lamont stand for? When? Do you want me to pull out his records from Greenwich? All incumbants can point to some positive things they did, and then point out that the challenger doesn’t have a strong record. That’s part of the role as challenger. What Lamont has promised is that he will stand up to the GOP majorities and GOP president. That’s what the CT Dems seem to want, when it comes to war, legislation, the SCOTUS, etc. Since the traffic in Fairfield County still sucks even after all of the pork Lieberman supposedly brought in, Lamont seems like the obvious choice for CT Dems.
You’re going to need a pitchfork to go with all that straw.
Harry S. Truman, a liberal? That’s taking revisionist history to an extreme. Dust off that old history book, it’s time to reread a few chapters. Or check David McCullough’s “Truman” out at the library…Truman was an extraordinary man and as president accomplished many notable things. But, he was not a liberal…by 1940’s standards or by today’s.
Look if support for civil rights, the expansion of the New Deal, and the belief in encouraging democracy and economic development aren’t liberal, somebody better tell JFK, LBJ, and Bill Clinton. Truman was backed by the liberal interest group Americans for Democratic Action, the only liberal group to disallow communists from joining. Other liberals, such as Hubert Humphery then mayor of Minneanapolis were instrumental in his presidential run. I would suggest reading Peter Beinart’s book, The Good Fight for more on the liberalism that was prevalent through Truman and Kennedy and has subsequently been fighting not only with post war conservatism, but progressivism as well.
Here is a link to an interesting Washington Monthly article on Truman with the premise that Truman ushered in the demise of liberalism…
<
p>
http://www.findartic…
<
p>
Truman is my favorite president…warts and all..he carried on FDR’s liberal initiatives but for pragmatic political reasons not philosophical beliefs…Harry was a Dixiecrat under the skin in many ways…if Harry had to answer one of the questionnaires candidates have to fill out today, he would not pass liberal muster domestically…abortion rights, gay marriage, even interracial marriage would send him into a spin I’m afraid…women’s rights? He thought a woman’s place was in the home…
<
p>
I will try to get the book you suggest. After I finished my Masters program, I swore I would never read another book on Truman, but I’m hooked on Harry I guess and can’t resist.
then again he’s not a polished politician.
<
p>
He’s come a long way. He’ll have coaches now to help him with his presentation, his television presence, and his oral delivery. He’ll undergo intensive instruction in current events, and there will be a test.
<
p>
This is truly a beautiful thing for those who appreciate democracy without makeup and shaved underarms.
<
p>
I am hopeful for the first time in many years.
Thought this was apt:
<
p>
<
p>
There’s a fighter for you.
He’s earned his moniker Sore Loserman in spades tonight.
Brilliant
“My name is Ned Lamont, and I approve this message.”
<
p>
I don’t know if this made it on the TV, but after Lamont closed with that line, the room erupted in “So do we!”
When he’s fighting for himself and his cushy job. He didn’t want to fight in 2000. Why should he? He had kept his seat in the Senate instead of letting another Democrat run. Had all the votes been counted in Florida and he had become VP, Conn. would have had a Republican Senator, tipping the 50-50 Dem/Rep. balance to the Repugs. Thanks, Joe.
<
p>
Joe is always about Joe. His concession speech was typical of his self-absorption and gracelessness. Lieberman has no sense of irony or truth. He said that this campaign had been particularly nasty and lied that his site had been “hacked,” strongly insinuating that the Lamont campaign had something to do with both conditions. Paranoia or smear tactic? You decide.
<
p>
I admit I have thought Joe was a priggish geek since his moralistic scolding of Bill Clinton during the impeachment run-up. But his non-concession concession speech was a low point even for him.
<
p>
Any Democrat who campaigns for the “Connecticut for Lieberman” Party is dead to me.
with the victory speech, but hey, the guy isn’t a pol. He seemed too shell-shocked to react, but I think we will see what he’s made of in the coming weeks, if we haven’t already. GO NED!