On August 8th, Democrats in Connecticut will go to the polls to choose who will represent them in the November election for U.S. Senator. They have two candidates to choose from: Ned Lamont and the incumbent, Joseph Lieberman. If they vote for Mr. Lamont, they will be voting for a Democrat to represent them. If the vote for Mr. Lieberman, they will be wasting their vote.
Mr. Lieberman has already stated that if he loses the upcoming Democratic primary, he will run in the November election as an independent. Therefore, a Democratic vote for Mr. Lieberman is a wasted vote. Mr. Lieberman does not need the votes of Connecticut Democrats in the Democratic primary – he has said so. So any vote cast in his favor would be a wasted vote – it would signify nothing. On the other hand, Mr. Lamont needs and wants the votes of Connecticut Democrats. He has campaigned hard for these votes. He has fought an often-lonely battle against a 35-year incumbent to get to this point. He has worked hard to become the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate from the great state of Connecticut. Democratic voters in Connecticut have only two meaningful choices: cast a vote for Ned Lamont or stay home. A citizen’s vote is his or her most powerful weapon in the arena of democracy – to cast that vote for a person who neither wants it or values it is a wasted exercise is democracy.
While Mr. Lamont has campaigned on the most important issue of the day, Mr. Lieberman has asked the Connecticut Democrats to ignore the issues and vote for him as a matter of inertia. Here is how Mr. Lieberman framed the decision facing Connecticut Democrats in his debate with Mr. Lamont:
Connecticut Democratic voters have a clear choice to make on primary day. I’m running for a better future for Connecticut based on my 18 years of service and results for our state. Ned Lamont seems just to be running against me, based on my stand on one issue, Iraq. And he is distorting who I am and what I have done.
Well, let me take Mr. Lieberman up on his offer on clarifying who he is and what he has done. Let’s clarify Mr. Lieberman’s stance on Iraq – the one issue, as he says. How many of you readers think that we are making progress in Iraq? If you do, please raise your hand. If you are like me or anyone else with sensory perception, you might be inclined to believe that a death rate of 3000 civilians per month is not progress in Iraq. However, if you are Senator Lieberman, you have a different yardstick. Here’s the Senator from the debate:
The situation in Iraq is a lot better, different than it was a year ago. The Iraqis held three elections. They formed a unity government. They are on the way to building a free and independent Iraq. Their military — two-thirds of their military is now ready, on their own, to lead the fight with some logistical backing from the U.S. or stand up on their own totally. That’s progress.
And the question is, are we going to abandon them while they are making that progress?
Let me repeat. I’m not for an open-ended commitment to Iraq. The sooner we’re out of there, the better it will be for the Iraqis and for us. But if we leave too soon, we will create disaster there. A terrorist state, civil war, regional instability, and the terrorists will be emboldened to strike us again.
So I am confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year, we will begin to draw down significant numbers of American troops, and by the end of the next year more than half of the troops who are there now will be home. But not because we set a deadline. That would make it harder. [Emphasis added by me.]
I know what you are thinking. You are thinking that I quoted George W Bush instead of the Senator just to trick you. I assure you that I quoted Joe Lieberman above. They read off the same Republican talking points. Either the Senator is incompetent because he can’t tell the difference between "progress" and "disaster" or the Senator is lying. I don’t know which it is and I don’t care. Neither should you. Both explanations suggest that he is no longer fit to be a United States Senator.
The fact that Mr. Lieberman defended his and Mr. Bush’s stance on Iraq in the debate is not at all surprising. But what is surprising is the way in which he attacked Mr. Lamont, a fellow Democrat. Lieberman was crass, at times vulgar, and always offensive. He was dismissive and arrogant. He was in complete attack dog mode:
The Joe Lieberman television viewers saw on Thursday night in his debate with maverick challenger Ned Lamont was not the mellow, sleepy-voiced, decent, religiously observant man we used to know. No, this was Joe Lieberman, the savvy, battle-hardened, and very aggressive politician.
Face to face with his rival, Lieberman came across as a man absolutely determined to save his career in the Senate, a man who wasn’t going to bother being genteel.
The real question is, why, time and time again, faced with Mr. Bush’s disaster in Iraq, his wiretapping, his Guantanamo Bay failures, etc. has Mr. Lieberman never felt the need to get aggressive? Instead he has preferred to kiss up to Mr. Bush on almost every significant issue of the last six years. When faced with a Democrat asking legitimate questions about our national security, the Senator thought that a civil tone was not warranted. Mr. Lieberman is a disgrace as a Democrat. If the Democrats lose the seat to a Republican in November, they will not have lost much. Mr. Lieberman already carries water for the Bush Administration – I doubt any registered Republican could carry more water or has a bigger bucket.
Mr. Lieberman is using Connecticut Democrats as cannon fodder. If he succeeds in the primary, he will use them some more. If he loses, he will toss them aside and defecate all over the will of the Connecticut Democrats. He will exercise his "option" to run against the Democratic nominee in November. Here’s the Senator again describing why he alone knows he is better for Connecticut regardless of the will of the voter:
I intend to win the primary, but I want to say, why did I do what I announced the other day, create the option? It’s because I believe this man can’t be elected in November.
And I know — and I have to say this directly — that I can do a better job for the people of Connecticut, a lot of whom are going to need some special help in the next six years than either he or Alan Schlesinger can, and I want to give all the voters, including a lot of Democrats, the opportunity to make that final decision in November.
Such arrogance is usually reserved for kings and tyrants – not United States Senators. This man must go – he views his job as an entitlement. That is an insult to all citizens. Furthermore, if he runs against the Democratic nominee in November, he will hinder the election of a Democrat to the U.S. Senate by dividing the Democratic vote. No Democratic party supporter would willingly do such damage to his party – except Lieberman, he is no Democrat.
While Mr. Lieberman has mutated into a vulgar mouthpiece who is only capable of aping his master, George W Bush, Mr. Lamont has shown steady poise and decency. He has grown in stature and confidence as this campaign has progressed. He did well to stand toe-to-toe in the debate against his more experience and rabid opponent. Since then he has gained even more confidence. I saw him last night on The Colbert Report and was thoroughly impressed by his confidence and his good humor. He appears to be a man of conviction and values that all Democrats can be proud of. He took a courageous stand on the Iraq War when most Democrats were still running for the hills. It appears now that his party is beginning to catch up to him.
Mr. Lamont is a Democrat with courage and conviction – the kind of Senator we need on the Hill. We have had enough of Democrats like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. We need real Democrats who will be able to come together as a viable opposition party in the United States Congress. It is time to nominate Ned Lamont as the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate from Connecticut.
Weep not for Joe Lieberman, he has a cabinet seat warmed up and waiting for him next to Mr. Bush.
As a point of intellectual honesty, this bears similarity to 04 presidential elections. CT election is against Joe Lieberman than for Lamont. Lamont does not have the experience in politics in any real sense to gain credibility (not of intention) over his promises. Though, I would like to see Lie(with George)Joeberman defeated by Lamont in the primary by a huge margin.
All I am saying is, a better candidate than Lamont would have been more convincing for people of CT. What is Laomnt’s political experience?
Bharat, I wrote this diary for a number of reasons:
– Lieberman and his smarmy condescending monotone is annoying the crap out of me
– Lamont impressed me in the debate. I actually heard the debate before I saw it. I was driving home from work and caught it on CSPAN radio. Then I saw the video replay. Hearing it rather than seeing it amplified Lieberman’s arrogance and vulgarity. On the other hand, Lamont’s decency and toughness came through.
– Lamont is very different from Kerry in that he is taking a stand on the tough issues and speaking out. Kerry’s problem was that he did not want to piss anyone off so remained ineptly silent. Lamont does not seem to show any characteristics of wimpiness. Mind you, I disagree with Lamont on a number of issues – not the least of which is the Middle East crisis. But he is a far cry from Lieberman’s active warmongering.
– While lacking Washington experience, Lamont does have enough business and political experience to not make him an unkown quantity. I have been following his campaign since folks on the Internet got excited about him because he was ther anti-Lieberman. I wrote nothing until he impressed me enough to write about it. A friend had asked me a little while ago if I would write something endorsing Lamont. Then came his Colbert Show appearance. I was quite confident after watching that show that I could endorse him wholeheartedly. This show was Lamont’s Arsenio Hall Show moment (a la Bill Clinton).
So, I came to Lamont by inches. And now that I am there, I am confident his nomination is a very good thing for the Dems and I do think he can win it in November, even in a 3-way race.
We need more Senators who will speak out – he might be one of them.
From the U.S. Constitution – “No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.”
This is the level of qualification the founders of this country deemed sufficient to be a US senator.
I am begining to be exasperated with the desire to only elect from the ruling class. They are made up of people more comfortable with their status than with the needs of the ruled. While Ned is wealthy and insulated from the woes of the poor, he seems more in touch with the common persons needs than most politicians.
Our founders always intended for the government to be run by us, not for us. The professional ruling class have not been doing a bang-up job for many years, why should we continue to allow more of the same?
Fresh ideas and views are more likely to come from those without vested interests. A regular changing of the guard is always in order.
GO NED!
:)>-
The slogan you have above your post is the same slogan the Conservative Party used in Canada! Steven Harper was going around campaigning using the “Stand up for Canada!” slogan, which apparently worked for him… [-(
Fob, nobody sits down anymore…everyone’s in a hurry, always up and about :d
That pic is from Lamont’s campaign website. I thought it was a good Senatorial pic of him and made for a good banner. I actually had not paid much attention to the tagline. Apparently this “Stand up for…” line works! \:d/
I don’t usually post endorsing political candidates. But this particular race definitely has national ramifications for the Democratic party. Plus, Lieberman irritates the crap out of me!
He ranks up there with Ted Stevens in my Senatorial irritation scale.
I think Ned has started showing he has the Joementum to get the job done. Now if we can just keep the other Democrats from making a spectacle out of the race, Ned will bring home the goods.
Y’all is a castin dispersions on the only good Democrats ya got; Joe and Zell.
Hell, if’n the rest of y’all lilly livered librals had half th’ smarts of those two, we’d a done won this hyar War on Terror.
Do you remember when Zell challenged that thar whimpy feller to a duel? Im a country ninja and that kinda scared ME!
THe Problem with Democrats is that they dont unnerstand ya has ta make war if’n ya want peace. Why dont y’all librals want peace? Isd it cause ya love War?
Yahoo News has Lamont with a double-digit lead. Can you say “Joe The Independent”?
No, Robbie, that one sticks in my throat…but I CAN say “Joe the shameless political opportunist.”
JoeMENTUM!!! I have to confess that I have no idea what that means…but it sounds good.
your blog still has less on Lamont and more on lieberman. Your blog does not say how you were won over by Lamont nearly as much as how much Liebemrman disgusts you (and me too).
I am more blown away by people like Howard Dean and Bill Clinton who have talked about policy choices that people can make on clean energy, foreign policy, global warming, etc.
Ned has constantly thrown some empty phrases like “If we are not spending on war, we can improve education and healthcare.” I had hoped for something more.
I am with Lamont on favoring Kerry Feingold bill for a fixed deadline withdrawl around which negotiations/arrangements will be made.
in particular a speech like this?
http://podcast.am1090seattle.com/kptk/24384.mp3 by Bill Clinton
bharat,
I would be kidding you if I said that in the absence of Lieberman I would have paid much attention to Lamont. Its likely that we never would have heard of him if Lieberman was not so pro-war. But the fact is that Lieberman is pro-war and because of that Lamont has been able to wage his campaign against such a long-time incumbant.
There is no way to look at Lamont without looking at the incumbant. You mention Bill Clinton – Lamont is by no means Bill Clinton and I hope I have not given any such impression.
You are right that this primary is all about replacing Lieberman with a Democrat who votes like a Democrat on the major foreign policy issue of our time. (Not to mention civil liberties and other important issues where Lieberman sides with Bush). Where Lamont is not like Kerry is that he has taken a opposing stance on these issues – Iraq, NSA spying, etc. That is good enough for me in a Democratic primary (if I were a CT voter).
Will CT voters get buyer’s remorse by replacing Lieberman – I doubt it. This election got nationalized the moment Lieberman decided to throw his lot in with Bush. This is a proxy fight – anyone who claims otherwise is kidding themselves.
So, in that sense, Mr. Lamont does not have a high threshold to overcome to be the anti-Lieberman and anti-Bush. Anything else he brings to the table is extra. I have read his positions on the major issues and I find nothing there that would alarm a Democrat. Given that and his impressive performance lately on some TV shows, he is clearly a better alternative to Lieberman as a Democrat.
If I sound like I am more anti-Lieberman than pro-Lamont, its probably because its true. Lamont would have to sink pretty low to disappoint me.