« Adnan Hajj: Hezbollah's "Dread Pirate Roberts?" | Main | A Timely Look At The Electric Car »

Today's Big Show -- Lieberman Vs. Lamont

Jim Hoft is saying goodbye to Joe Lieberman, and hello to some pretty scary stuff.

I still think Lieberman could pull it out, although, in spite of a tightening race, the odds are still against him. What I can't decide is whether I would prefer a Lieberman win, which would be a strong blow to the anti-war/nutroots crowd, or a Lieberman loss followed by a November win by an independent Lieberman. There are definitely pros and cons associated with each outcome.

Yesterday's Blogometer at National Journal has a really good roundup of commentary on the race from the lefty blogs.

Dean Barnett, blogging at Hugh Hewitt, has an interesting take on the race. Here is the second half of his ten part Q&A:

6) Has there been a disquieting whiff of anti-Semitism in the anti-Lieberman campaign?

Yes. For some reason, Lieberman's opponents decided it was appropriate to tar the Senate's most prominent Jew with Nazi-like rhetoric. Kos tagged an entry on Lieberman with the label "Vichy Democrats." Allah has pointed out that someone started calling Lieberman's campaign workers the LieberYouth. And I don't know exactly what Jane Hamsher meant with that black-face piece of artistic commentary, but it wasn't nice.

7) Does tomorrow's election mean the Nutroots officially own the Democratic Party?

Whatever the result, they own it already. The only difference will be the media will take belated widespread notice of this fact if Lamont wins.

8) Why would anyone want to own this Spruce Goose of a political party?

You got me there.

9) If Lamont loses, will the nutroots spend the next three months saying they were cheated, hatching conspiracy theories and demanding a recount?

We really don't have time for such obvious questions.

10) If Lieberman wins, will the nutroots rally behind him to unite the party?

See answer to number 9.

Check in at Wizbang Politics to follow the last moments of the campaign and, later this evening, election results.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Today's Big Show -- Lieberman Vs. Lamont:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Meet Joe Lieberman's Worst Nightmare

Comments (31)

Well, what an interesting f... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Well, what an interesting foray into the absurd. But then I would expect nothing less from the right. You folks are all hysterical about what is in essence a local race in a very liberal state. It's one race in one place folks. It's about as significant as Mississippi voting for a more conservative candidate than Trent Lott.

So the accusation is that "someone" did something ant-semetic. No reference to who or when or where. Therefore, "Libermean's opponents" are using ant-semitism against him. What an absurd and ridiculous statement. But then why would I be surprised?

I know the right has forgotten that we live in a democracy where folks actually get to believe in whatever they want, express what they want and vote for whom they choose. Not everyone is so deluded that they need to walk hand-in-hand over the cliff with their party.

The "anyone(s)" who want to own the democratic part are about equal in niumber to those who want to own your party. I am Just as puzzled about ownership or your party.

Try substituting "majority ... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Try substituting "majority of Americans" for "anti-war/nutroot" for a little perspective.

You folks are all hyster... (Below threshold)
OCSteve:

You folks are all hysterical about what is in essence a local race in a very liberal state

Local race? The thing that most people are missing is that Lamont is a candidate being pushed by limousine liberals from the west coast. How is that local? Do you really think that these netroots, based on the opposite coast, have the best interests of Connecticut voters at heart? Much of his support, volunteers, and campaign contributions come from out of state. We have a top far left blogger moving to the state for a month to support the candidate. They have been importing supporters and volunteers from other states.

This is not about Connecticut at all. It’s about the far left seizing on an opportunity to unseat an incumbent of their own party they hate with a passion. If they are successful here you can bet they will be emboldened in a huge way. It is a power grab. Field a peace candidate, be my guest. Karl Rove couldn’t do a better job.

OC SteveGet a grip... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

OC Steve

Get a grip and try not falling back on trite labels. The west coast limo folks don't vote in Connecticut. Duh. Wheteher Lamont is pushed by Santa Claus, west coasters, or the tooth fairy is irrelevant. Your smug comments, of course, assume that the voters of Connecticut are stupid. Or, even worse, like the right which is blindly following Bush off the cliff. Perhaps they have studied the issues and made an independant judgment and perhaps they are voting for what they believe. I know that's hard for some of you folks to grasp.

The funny part is all the uproar about bloggers. You (we) take ourselves way too seriously. I suspect that the majority of voters in Connecticut have never read a blog.

Maybe we can get "The Emper... (Below threshold)
moseby:

Maybe we can get "The Emperor" (aka Sen Palpatine) to groom Lieberman as the next Zel Miller.

Its a choice between JAFAR ... (Below threshold)
krazy kagu:

Its a choice between JAFAR or CAPTIAN HOOK

It is better that Joe win a... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

It is better that Joe win as a Democrat if the party has any hope of regaining its footings. They need more adults over there, not less.

Joe's a decent human being as well as a good liberal. I may disagree with his politics, but I have to admire his character. That can't be said for the new crop of turks in the party.

Lieberman is likely to lose... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

Lieberman is likely to lose. My state continues it's death spiral toward oblivion.

It is interesting that Lamont is against everything, but being against is not a policy or a plan, yet it is all Lamonters have.

He is but one more rich white Democrat (but I repeat myself) with excess free time on his hands.

Lamont is not a serious man. Thus I face living in state with one imbecilic Senator and a new, totally un-serious, disingenuous goofball for a US Senator.

The west coast limo folk... (Below threshold)
OCSteve:

The west coast limo folks don't vote in Connecticut.

Obviously not. But they can and have raised money, worked hard to raise his profile in the sphere and old media in general, inflated crowds at rallies, knocked on doors in Connecticut – etc.

My point is that there are people very vested in this campaign who have their own agenda and don’t give a rat’s ass about the people of Connecticut. If you don’t know that then you have not been following this race very closely.

But go ahead. Take out your last moderate (who still votes the party line 90% of the time) and risk what should have been a safe seat. Make Karl’s day.

OC Steve,The Democ... (Below threshold)
Nahanni:

OC Steve,

The Democratic party did not learn from it's history so they are repeating it.

Review the history of the 1864 Democratic convention and the party platform. Review the rhetoric of the Democratic party candidates and their supporters in the media of that time. Change a few words here and there and it all sounds remarkably like the Democratic party and the media of today. They all had a foaming at the mouth case of LDS at the time, and I am not referring to The Church of Latter Day Saints either.

Then review what happened to the party and the media in the years that followed.

What an inane and silly sta... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

What an inane and silly statement drjohn. Lamont has lots of positive policy proposals. You may not agree with them, you make even think them silly or dangerous. But to repeat that trite, worn out, yes stupid, right mantra about being against but having no plan is just, well, stupid.

OC SteveOh gee, I ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

OC Steve

Oh gee, I guess this is the very first time "outsiders" have given money, time and energy to a political race. By your silly logic, George Bush has no right going to a candidates state and stumping for that person.

Again, you assume the voters are stupid, only read left wing blogs and have no ability to make independant judgments. Of course, I know that's hard for righties to grasp as, I repeat, you blindly follow Bush off the cliff.

Funny how Lamont suddenly w... (Below threshold)
waldo:

Funny how Lamont suddenly withdrew his membership in the Round Hill CC. He didn't like the fact that it was under represented by minorities. If he were a republican, the left would be all over him for even belonging.

Lieberman and Lamont really... (Below threshold)

Lieberman and Lamont really only differ on the war. Joe's sensible, Lamont's tied to the nutroots. The one sane Democrat who recognizes that we need to win Iraq and keep fighting the Jihad around the world is getting kicked out of his seat because Democrats have an irational hatred for Bush.

oh, well!

I just wonder what this could mean for Bill Clinton. Since he campaigned for Joe, does a Joe loss mean less of a star shine for Bubba?

There is a peculiar tendenc... (Below threshold)
john:

There is a peculiar tendency of certain groups to claim that opposition to their group or party is based on irrational hatred or a desire to persecute them. The rational reasons for opposing Bush are numerous. He was unsuited for the position because he never had any interest in global affairs and left himself at the mercy of a small group of advisors. Having strongly held beliefs regardless of the facts is vital in religion but not in a president. Intelligent flexibility is necessary. Iraq was an elective war and took lives and money away from more pressing dangers. I suspect that if the supporters of Iraq were living there, they would have preferred the security of Saddam to the chaos that currently exists. Unfortunately, democracy can not be imposed by military means. It is as naive as thinking diplomacy can solve all conflicts.

Lori, who shook the tree? ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Lori, who shook the tree? All the nuts feel out. It is obvious Wizbang is growing, and with growth comes more koolaid drinking moonbats. Hugh, welcome to the Lee and Mantis party. I loved it when you stated Lamont is more than a one issue candidate. Can you speak to many of them? I can. He wants to increase taxes and impeach the President. I hope he tries. We will raise an army, come to Washington and hang every democrat.

I look forward to next mont... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I look forward to next month's Rhode Island primary, where Republicans will "purge" their party of Lincoln Chafee. I'll bet you the Democrats hardly notice that election, yet Republicans are extremely worried about the Connecticut Democratic primary. Funny, that.

I look forward to next m... (Below threshold)

I look forward to next month's Rhode Island primary, where Republicans will "purge" their party of Lincoln Chafee.

Um, Chafee votes like a member of the opposite party. Lieberman does not. Big difference.

"Having strongly held belie... (Below threshold)

"Having strongly held beliefs regardless of the facts is vital in religion..."

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever read on the internet.

Personally, I'm rooting for... (Below threshold)
cmd:

Personally, I'm rooting for Lamont. The sooner the whole filthy collection of Kossacks, conspiracy mongers, anti-Semites, abortionists, appeasers, Catholic bashers, racists, poverty pimps and outright fifth columnists who call themselves Democrats vanish into the garbage bin of history, the better for the rest of us.

"I suspect that if the supporters of Iraq were living there, they would have preferred the security of Saddam to the chaos that currently exists."

Ah, yes, the good old days in Iraq. Where apple-cheeked children flew kites to the soothing whine of plastic shredders and the hills were alive to the musical sound of Qusay and Uday's rape rooms. Where benevolent Uncle Saddam smiled genially as he presented yet another $20,000 check to the family of a suicide bomber (who was driven to it by the Joooooooooosss, dont'cha know). Where the water was clean, the electricity strong and the nobody was starving from the Oil-for-Food scam.

Yeah, John, those were the days. Asshat.

Zellsdorf:Your ign... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Zellsdorf:

Your ignorance is only out-weighed by your stupidity. Read, listen and stop walking off the cliff. I don't need to give you a lesson on what Lamont stands for, you'd be too dumb to understand it anyway.

That stupid mantra/talking point about what dems stand for represents just how little you folks know. Yeah yeah yeah, now tell us about more taxes and impeachment. You have any intelectual curiosity at all Zellsdorf?

It is ironic that our lefti... (Below threshold)

It is ironic that our leftist buddies are acting as the new Sturm Abteilung (either that or they read Robert Ringer's book about winning through intimidation). I am convinced that is the real leftist strategy, to run off everyone who disagrees with them, as they seem to have adopted the Nazi approach from the 1930's. What's next, "the Night of the Long Knives" or burning down the Reichstag?

Well, yes, they have filthy... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

Well, yes, they have filthy mouths and nothing positive to say at all. At least some of them are honest enough to admit they miss Saddam Hussein.

But yes, indeed, let's bring 'em on! The more the public at large sees of the moonbat left, the less likely they are to vote with them.

Hugh-If you are as... (Below threshold)
Rick:

Hugh-

If you are as intelligent as you try to portray yourself, you would realize that the primary in CT is not about voting for a quality candidate in Ned Lamont. It's about punishing Joe Lieberman for supporting the war. So please don't try to defend Ned Lamont's stance on any issue. He will say what's necessary to satisfy the Democratic activists, because those are the folks who vote in primaries.

Ned Lamont is a multi-millionaire who had the money to personally fund the beginnings of a campaign until the far left at moveon.org and other radicals could get on board. The only public office that this man has ever held was a selectman (city councilman) for the town of Greenwich for 2 years. He has about as much knowledge of foreign and domestic policy, and the workings of the federal government, as you do. What he has done is use the typical far left talking points....universal health care, anti-war, stem cell research, more funding for education, and on and on....to fire up the activists When you are told that he doesn't have any plans for any of these issues, you are being told the facts. He only tells us that he is going to fix all the problems of this country, but we are not told how he intends to do this.

The sad thing for those of your ilk, is that if Lieberman loses this primary, he will win the general election as an independent, so you haven't gained anything, and you have lost a well respected Democrat who will never chair a committee as an independent. Many CT Republicans, including myself, will vote for Joe in November, and polls show that Lamont will receive less than 30% of the vote. Unaffiliated voters make up 45% of the 2 million voting population in CT. So do the math. If Lieberman receives a percentage in the mid 40's in this primary, and you factor in the votes of the unaffiliated and Republicans in November, Lamont is on thin ice. I am a conservative Republican, and even though I don't agree with many of his positions, I have voted for Lieberman in his past 2 campaigns, because we need more men of integrity and honesty in Washington, and whether you agree or disagree with his positions, he certainly fills that need. Lamont, who knows? But when he has to be told by his handlers that belonging to an exclusive, non diverse country club might not look so good on his resume, he quickly gives up his membership. So, I guess that it took him 15 years before he realized that the club did not have a diverse membership. Then when cornered on the black face controversy, he claims that he doesn't know anything about blogs, even though Jane Hamsher, who posted the photo, is a major part of his campaign team and helped him set up his own blog. And to my knowledge, he didn't have any harsh words for Jane, or even consider relieving her of her duties. So, maybe you have better knowledge of the integrity of Ned Lamont....if so, let me hear it.

Um, Chafee votes like a ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Um, Chafee votes like a member of the opposite party.

Maybe so, but that still doesn't explain why Republicans are so invested in a Democratic primary.

Lieberman does not. Big difference.

Well, let's look at some of the issues that Lamont supporters criticize Lieberman for:

-For the Iraq War
-Did not take a stand against torture
-Votes against affirmative action
-Votes against same-sex marriage
-Votes against hospitals providing emergency contraception to rape victims
-Supported Gov. Bush's interference in the Schiavo matter
-Frequently attacks other Democrats
-Fought against Democratic proposals closing loopholes which allowed corporations to cook their books ala Enron (that was in 1993, how'd that work out?)
-Forged alliances with religious right leaders like Ralph Reed and Bill Bennett
-Voted against the lobbyist gift ban
-Helped Lynne Cheney form the McCarthyist American Council of Trustees and Alumni, designed to castigate academics for not being patriotic enough.
-Voted to confirm Alberto "Torture" Gonzalez
-Joined the "Gang of 14" to stop the filibuster of Alito
-Voted for the Helms proposal to cut off funding to help suicidal gay teens.
-Helped to quickly shuffle Michael Brown into his job heading FEMA
-Voted to censure Clinton, but called Feingold's proposal to censure Bush on wiretapping "divisive"
-And of course, his Op-Ed in the WSJ saying that Democrats shouldn't oppose Bush because they "undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

Now I don't necessarily agree with all of these criticisms, but they do add up to a lot more than just "The War".

Rick:What's your p... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Rick:

What's your point? If you read my posts, my point has been simple. The people of Connecticut are not stupid, as some of you fellow righties portray, and they may vote for whom they want for whatever reason they want. The argument that has been made is that the far left bloggers are going to be responsible for Lamont's victory if he wins. That says a lot about the citizens of Connecticut doesn't it?

I am not a citizen of Connecticut tho I spent 4 fabulous years there (not Yale) in college. I happen to be a fan of Lieberman and hope he gets elected. Once again, i am only trying to refute silly positions vis a vis the responsibilty for outcomes in elections. I happen to believe this primary is local, not natiional and it's outcome will mean next to nothing in the general election. But you righties get your panties in a wad about, what in the general scope of things, is not a big deal. But then since the right's agenda is being rejected by most of the populace you don't have much else to do.

Finally, to argue that Lamont has no policy positions is absurd. You may disagree with it, you may hate it, that's your choice. But to repeat the trite nonsense about no policy,only tax and impeach shows the bankruptcy of the right.

Man, if the issues of educa... (Below threshold)
Prince of PEACE:

Man, if the issues of education, health, and peace were really only of concern to the "far-left", as Rick suggests, then the far-left in America is to the Right of most of the rest of the world. Of course, the premise is entirely false, as any national poll would tell a person who could, and was willing to read and understand basic statistics.

Think for yourselves. It's healthier, and not so difficult as you might think.

So the accusation is tha... (Below threshold)
mesablue:

So the accusation is that "someone" did something ant-semetic. No reference to who or when or where. Therefore, "Libermean's opponents" are using ant-semitism against him. What an absurd and ridiculous statement. But then why would I be surprised?

What rock have you been hiding under?

Nice how you come in here and start calling people inane and stupid, yet you aren't aware of very public and heavily reported recent events.

It was Jane Hamsher who not only portrayed Lieberman in blackface, but also coined the term LieberYouth. Ned then tried to say that he "didn't know anything about the blogs" and "anyone who pretends to be a Lamont supporter does not represent me". Jane Hamsher then shot his video blog within a couple of days.

I know the right has forgotten that we live in a democracy where folks actually get to believe in whatever they want, express what they want and vote for whom they choose.

Try posting a comment on Jane's blog - firedoglake.com - that does not meet the standards of their echo chamber and see how long it lasts. Their moderators edit or delete any posts that they do not agree with -- within minutes. So much for "expressing what they want".

Your rock misses you, go climb back under it until you have something meaningful to say. Until then you sound like every other little lefty that can't see past the memo glued to the end of his nose for safekeeping.

measblueWere you a... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

measblue

Were you abysed as a child or something? Get some anger counseling. You're pathetic

Nope, never have been abyse... (Below threshold)
mesablue:

Nope, never have been abysed. Is it fun?

Thanks for proving my point.

Ad hominem, ad hominem, etc......

Nahanni:More recen... (Below threshold)
David Atkins:

Nahanni:

More recent than 1864 look at 1972 when McGovern pushed the party to the far left during Vietnam.

Now Tricky Dick pulled some stuff but if he had played fair he would have still done a landslide.

If this 1 state's reaction has "pushed" Democrat national policy making to the extreme then they will lose in '08




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy