News-Record.com

Yesterday was a sad day for the nation. Senator Lieberman is a true statesman. I believe he will win as a liberal candidate and hope he does not change his mind about running. BB

I'm curious, what about Lamont's positions represent a "lurch to the left?"

Folks, it was a primary election. A routine part of democracy. As Tip O'Neill once said, all politics is local, and given Connecticut's small size relative to other states, politics is more local there than most other places.

I've got family and friends there, and this is what they tell me: Lamont came and spoke to their civic group/church dinner/whatever when Lieberman didn't even acknowledge the invitation. Yes, Lamont wants us out of Iraq; so, as of this morning, does 60% of the country. But the Connecticut Democrats I know voted for Lamont because they oppose Bush's policies and want their senator to do the same, NOT cuddle up to him while gratuitously bashing other Democrats. Connecticut is among the nation's blue-er states, so this should not be surprising.

One other point: This race was Lieberman's to lose. It should never have been close. If he had been a little more patient with voters and displayed a little less of an entitlement mentality, he'd have won. If he'd had a half-decent ground game, he'd have won by at least 10 points.

But he behaved like a petulant child and he ran an absolutely awful campaign. He had an overwhelming financial advantage, not to mention endorsements from leading Democrats from Bill Clinton on down and the AFL-CIO besides. So he should have had an overwhelming advantage in being able to muster (and pay) get-out-the-vote workers, but Lamont's organization, mostly volunteers, out-hustled his. He ran ads comparing Lamont to Lowell Weicker, the guy he first beat for the seat 18 years ago. Problem is, Weicker is someone a lot of voters have never heard of and many others barely remember.

The national media, to the extent I've seen, have downplayed or ignored most of these factors, for whatever reason.

I have no idea whether Lamont will be bad for the country. Even if he is, I suspect that one senator from one liberal northeastern state can do little or no damage in one term.

Finally, Michigan Republicans kicked an incumbent Congressman out yesterday, and Republican Sen. Chafee of Rhode Island faces a primary challenge, and apparently no one sees these as disastrous for the Republicans (nor should they), so can someone explain to me why Lamont beating Lieberman is disastrous for the Democrats?

I am a CT native and have met several of the state's senators and representatives through work up there. Lieberman was an Eliot Sptizer-like attorney general and even had cordial relations with that other CT firebrand, Ralph Nader, to work together for the rights of consumers and "the little guy" in the face of "big business". So, he at least once was a "liberal candidate".

Talking with my parents, though, who are far from knee-jerk tree-hugger sorts, being good hard-working blue collars, they have become disillusioned with Lieberman for his increased kowtowing to lobbyist-run business concerns. The clincher, obviously, for many Nutmeggers was his undeterred lockstep with Pres. Bush over the war in Iraq.

Lamont is probably no Naderesque fighter against corporate interests, unless his wealth allows him to spit in the wind. He did, however, capitalize on dissatisfaction with status quo, ostrich-head-in-the quagmire non-think on Iraq.

I, too, as a registered Independent, would like to see more mavericks and maybe even a coalition of free-thinkers in Congress. New England has a grand tradition of moderates, in fact. Chris Shays, Lowell Weicker, and the late Paul Tsongas come to mind.

Lamont's positions can be found here: http://nedlamont.com/issues

This one, particularly, veers far to the left of center:

"I am proud that Connecticut was one of the first states to legalize civil unions and remain hopeful that we will be one of the first to enact full marriage equality. Unlike Senator Lieberman, I would have opposed the Federal ‘Defense of Marriage Act’."

The Defense of Marriage Act, approved 85-14 by the Senate and signed by President Clinton in 1996, says that North Carolina does not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state. It's my understanding that most mainstream Democrats argue that same-sex marriage is an issue that should be decided on a state-by-state basis.

Lex, I'm sure your analysis of the campaign is absolutely on target. I just would have that that Lieberman's long service to the people of Connecticut would have counted for more.

That last sentence should have read, "I just would have thought that ..."

Freddy, thanks for your remarks. Good addition to the discussion.

Thanks, Doug. That' kind of shoots a hole in your claim that Lamont is a "one-issue" candidate.

Some news for you, Doug, Lamont's position on civil unions is in line with the majority of Americans. Republicans, so concerned with the direction of the Democratic party, may be in for a surprise about what mainstream America really is. Entrenched for eight years in their hard right cocoon, the "lurch to the left" is only their distorted view of a lurch to the middle.

Roch, one issue resonated more strongly with Connecticut Democrats than did others.

The Lamont statement I quoted contained two sentences, so maybe you weren't able to plow all the way through it. Where he is out of the mainstream is in his support for same-sex marriage and his opposition to the principle that states should be allowed to set their own marriage standards.

The Democrats run from one hot-button issue to the next, changing their position to suit the polls and do what they think will garner them the most support, regardless of the damage they do to our country, society, or family structure.
Lieberman continued to take the position he felt was morally correct, he refused to follow "lock-step" with the disingenuous "position de jour" of his fellow Democrats.

Maybe he didn't get the memo.

Jaycee, I hardly think it is the Dems alone who lurch from one hot-button to the next. Witness the slimy Republican strategy to bring up wedge issues before November they know won't pass: the pledge, flag-burning, the aforementioned (anti-)gay rights issues, etc. Add to that the cynical hostage-taking of a minimum wage increase by locking it to huge giveaways for heirs of the Über-rich.

That said, while I may grant Lieberman has some spine to stick with his position on the war, it doesn't negate the fact many of his constituents disagreed from the start (and turned out to be right when no WMD were found in Iraq) and have every right to unseat him for that reason. In addition, many mainline blue collar workers (often Republican-leaning, mind you, like my parents) split with Lieberman over his special-interest lobby-loving.

Some of them even switched registration from Independent to Democrat to vote against Lieberman, my mother told me last night, as reported on the local news there; a good many may vote Republican in the general election, unless the candidate is also ridiculously behooven to the corporate mob and thus would shower more white-collar-welfare on Wall Street and its minions.

Karl Rove and the Republicans are gonna love Lamont and if true to character should make politcal hay out of his victory.

They'll position his philosophy as the national Democratic one in favor of gay marriage and leaving Iraq in an expedited timetable, meaning now. With Rep. Maxine Walters, Revs. Jackson & Sharpton supporting Lamont, now that'll scare the bejeebies out of about any sane person in America.

Senator Joe just might have a chance to still win as an independent if he can appeal to more independents and get more Republican votes who should flock to him as a result of a) their guy ain't gonna win anyway, and b) Lamont's philosophy frightens them. And Senator Joe will still pickup a good number of Democrat voters who have a lot of history with him.

Cynthia McKinney must have felt abandoned when the equally nutty Revs. and Rep. Walters didn't show up to support her and her bid to remain seated.

Doug: I just would have that that Lieberman's long service to the people of Connecticut would have counted for more.

Well, I imagine the people of Connecticut decided for themselves the weight and value of Lieberman's long service. But, of course, I wasn't there, so I don't know for sure. :-)

Lex,

What I just found out, and put in a new post, is that registered independents outnumber Democrats in Connecticut. So "the people" haven't spoken yet. They will in November. Only then will all Connecticut voters have the chance to decide who will represent the state in the Senate for the next six years.

In a more positive result, Democrats in Georgia's 4th Congressional District overwhelmingly chose Hank Johnson over nutty Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Maybe this will knock her out of politics for good. *Doug

Well since the mainstream media is defending poor Joe today for being a traitor to the Democrat party. I have decided to defend my favorite socialist Cute little Cynthia.

She is one of the few interesting Congressites, and her replacement by yet another robot for the state leaves DC a grayer place. More to the point, she opposed the Bush wars and police state, even if she is an ardent welfarist, and even if she is not as careful a critic as one might wish. It does not seem to me a self-evident crime for a small woman to knock a burly cop in the chest with her cell phone after he grabbed her from behind.

Doug, Lieberman ran as a Democrat. The Democrats decided they didn't want him. So the people have spoken. This was a primary election, not an armed insurrection, people.

Relatedly, exit polling here for those interested.

I understand that, Lex. My point is that a senator represents everyone in his state. All the people of Connecticut have not been heard from in the Senate election. If it turns out that most Connecticut voters want Lieberman to continue serving as their senator, then his independent candidacy will prove to be a good thing and the most democratic outcome. Let's wait and see.

In some ways our primary system is undemocratic. First, it sets roadblocks in front of independent candidacies -- more so in North Carolina than in most other states. In addition, it often produces general election candidates -- the winner of the Dem primary against the winner of the Repub primary -- neither of whom might actually be the top choice of the majority of the total electorate.

I'm increasingly becoming a proponent of nonpartisanship. I think we'd be better off.

Ah, the George Washington Option. ;-)

I'm increasingly becoming a proponent of nonpartisanship. I think we'd be better off.*Doug

You keep saying that! And both parties will make you a enemy of the media. Shame on you for purposing a radical idea like our founders.

How could anyone be surprised by Lieberman's loss? Why even the bulk of Republican cantinuts are running away from the Bush Administration as fast as they can. Why? Because the majority of American voters now believe the Bush Administration lied and the invasion, distruction, and occupation of Iraq was a mistake that have increased the likelyhood of possible terrorists.

Leiberman may well be a man of principles who votes what he believes but when the majority of voters disagree the toss him out.

I suspect this pattern will be repeated many times come November if not before.

What I would be curious to know is who will be the money behind Lieberman's independent bid? Who will try to use him as a spoiler against which side?

hey i wanna talk about chris shays he have done nothing for ct and he supported the war in iraq he is just like bush so ct lets vote for dian fharell come november and ned lamount