Friday, July 07, 2006

The Empty Suit Won't Go To Washington

Last night's debate between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman was all about positioning Ned Lamont as a credible alternative to Joe Lieberman. Credibility was the ongoing theme with Lieberman questioning the relentless half truths and distortions of his record in a direct confrontation of Lamont, and Lamont scrambling to sound credible when talking about the issues.

Aside from the fact that Lamont was nervous and seemed transfixed by some unseen headlights bearing down on him, his answers were devoid of debate and just a repetition of his campaign slogans, and empty business speak. In other words, Lamont was exactly who he is, a suit used to selling features without fundamentally understanding what he is talking about.

Lieberman by contrast was at ease, at times aggressive towards Lamont. His performance was not the usual dry and boring recitation of nuanced policy points. He poked holes through Lamont's wavering statements on Iraq, and highlighted his long history of opposing Bush administration policies. Lieberman articulated his positions, why he held them and where they fit in his political philosophy.

Lieberman successfully framed Ned Lamont as a guy who was running against George Bush and Lamont helped by turning every answer into a George Bush attack. The big problem for Lamont was that George Bush was on another channel answering questions from Larry King, and the guy he is really running against is Joe Lieberman.

Last night more people tuned in to watch the Mets and Yankees win, than the debate. They missed the opportunity to be introduced to Greenwich's version of Lynn Westmoreland. It is unlikely that the debate will sway the people who watched much. The angry liberals will continue their war on the war, and baseball games will attract more interest. The question of who will show up on August 8th remains unanswered, but the larger question of who should be going to Washington in November looks like Joe Lieberman.

61 comments:

BRubenstein said...

Turfgrrl...Thye one who was angry last night was Joe...

cgg said...

It's likely that more people would have tuned into baseball than a presidential debate. Meanwhile this was on national television, and how often does that happen for a Senate primary? Interest is high.

I would also argue that Lieberman stayed much closer to his talking points than Ned. Joe even repeated several points from the worst press release ever. If anything Ned wasn't focused enough on his talking points. He didn't have enough soundbite moments.

As for angry liberals, clearly we aren't half as angry as Joe Lieberman. Last night he reaked of anger, frustration, and bitterness. And it wasn't just the bloggers who noticed. It was noted several times in the press. The idea that he was at ease is just laughable. Frankly, I don't see how anyone could say that with a straight face.

kerryguy said...

Joe will do anything to keep his job. He is desperate and his unoriginal handlers are trotting out every ad or line that has worked in the past. The Bear ad, the stealing of Reagan and Benson's debate one-liners. He keeps attacking Lamont as a "Greenwich Millionaire", but it is never addressed that Joe is a millionaire as well - the difference is Joe has nebver worked outside the public sector to gain those millions. He sucks off the public teat, and now, faced with the loss of that, has sunk to new lows. He embarrassed himself last night. While Lamont did not look particularly senatorial, neither did the incumbent.

Gabe said...

I wish I had seen the debate you saw last night...

At ease? Compared to Zell Miller maybe. Maybe.

Gabe said...

Also, I (sort of) understand why Senator Lieberman thinks that he owns that Senate seat (18 years, VP nominee, etc.), but I csn't for the life of me figure out why he thinks he owns Lamont's rebuttal time... Can you?

Also, why did he jet out of the post debate spin room when asked about his anger issues?

Patricia Rice said...

Nice job turfgrrl...

It's nice to read an accurate description of last nights debate. When you see how the local and national liberal media spin last nights debate you can see why Republican's control Washington. The far left is no different than Fox News.

If we are ever going to take back the White House and congress, the far left Liberals have to be contained. Senator Lieberman is a true leader and that showed last night.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Patricia Rice said... "
the far left Liberals have to be contained"


Nice idea but they'll never all fit in this mayonaise jar I have here.(holding it up to the monitor so you can see)

What do you have in mind?

I was thinking about giving them free all expense paid trips, one way of course, to where ever we've been getting illegals from. At least the illegals want to be Americans and most of them want to work too.

I'm not so sure either is true for members of the far left.

cgg said...

Without the liberals you'll never get control of the white house or congress.

BRubenstein said...

Pat Rice and Turfgrrl...

Your candidate( Joementum) lost the debate last night...he came off as angry,petulant and dismissive..and distorted the truth and his past record..he was clearly angry and didnt comport himself like a 3rd term Senator.

Lamont came accross like he is...a novice who in the first half of the debate had a " deer in headlights look"..but he was factual,optimistic and earnest and he rebounded nicely in the last half of the debate...his worst answer was when he fudged the request about making public his tax returns.I personally debate prepped several candidates for debates ( larson vs. o'connor...etc)and i submit to you both that Lamont's debate prep wasn't up to the standards of a Senator but fortuneately he rebounded in enough time to overcome what certainly is a sophmoric attempt at debate prep.

The good news here for Lamont supporters ( and i am one) is that most folks will rate the debate about even and Lamont showed enough to convince folks that he could be a credible Senator.

The end result the last few days is that Joementum lost more support with his petition announcement then he gained in the debate...thus my prediction of a Lamont primary win remains secure.

The True Gentleman said...

Where's my man, BRubenstein? I have been looking forward to his input on the debate.

Derby Conservative said...

Let me preface this comment by acknowledging that I am supporting Alan Schlesinger in November.

I can easily understand why Joe Lieberman is so angry. He's given many years of service to the people of Connecticut, as State Senator, Attorney General and as US Senator. He has served his party faithfully, consistently voting with the party (he has a very liberal voting record) and running for Vice president in 2000 and President in 2004.

After over 30 years of public service representing the Democrats in this state, he supports a Republican President's national security initiatives and writes an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal and all of the sudden, he's not a Democrat anymore? It's preposterous!

I would venture to say that the Senator isn't angry so much as betrayed by his own party. You know, he's pretty liberal and I really don't want him, but he's got to understand what Ronald Reagan meant when he said "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the party left me."

Anonymous said...

Listen, I understand that y'all want to talk about which horse did better last night. The fact is that regardless who wins the primary, Joe will be on the ballot in November. So can we back-burner the debate and focus on a real "strike when the iron's hot" issue: Moooooooody? This might actually help to push 'that other race' to the forefront.

justavoter said...

Hi ,

The post review of Lamont performace is far from true.
The person that wrote it sounds like a Lieberman supporter from the get go.
I watched this debate as a voter and from what I saw it was Lieberman on the defensive most of the night.
Also Lieberman rudeness with Lamont when he was given his turn to speak was not one who acted as a Senior Senator with experience in Washington but onw who acted like he was desperate and angry that Lamont was running against him like he King of us all.

Lamont came across direct and to the point and did not seemed fazed by Lieberman angry or attacked.

Turfgrrl review must have been another debate I wonder what drugs she was on when she watched Lamont debate Lieberman?

BRubenstein said...

CGG...they dont understand politics..its like talking to a 6 year old..the more they exclude liberals the lesser their chances of controling the white house or congress...you would think someone with experience would " get it" but clearly they dont.

The Chief said...

Well, it seems clear that neither Joe nor Ned are going to give up without a fight. The question now is this: where is Alan Schlesinger and can he make himself a party to this debate? We know that Lieberman and Schlesinger will be on the Nov. ballot... so where is Alan now?

Jim said...

Before anyone else attacks Turfgrrl for her commentary, let me applaud her for the best account of the debate I've read so far.

Lamont got creamed. God, it was beautiful.

But on a more substantial note, what really is the deal with Ned and Annie's tax returns? If an 18 year incumbent can happily release his and show up squeaky clean, then why can't this supposed outsider and man of the people. Lamont clearly just isn't ready for public life.

Anonymous said...

Interesting take on the debate. I have looked in on this blog before, and, although it is obviously slanted toward Joe, I didn't realize that it is bought and paid for.
I'll keep reading if only to get a peek behind enemy lines.

justinh said...

Show me where any of this happened in the debate. (I'm new to this site, but I'm beginning to suspect that this turfgrrl isn't really interested in a serious conversation.)

justinh said...

Can you point to anything at all in the debate that actually supports these claims? Unfortunately, this post doesn't invite a serious conversation about the debate. But I suppose that's not really its purpose.

Zengerite said...

Turfgrrl,

Your analysis is pretty much on the money. If people here took their agenda glasses off, put themselves in the mind of the dominant creature of Connecticut: the unaffiliated indy voter, Joe won. Because today, they'd only be hearing about the debate second-hand. And they still wouldn't even know who Lamont is.

Anonymous said...

According to JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, an AP type organization covering Jewish news), they got ahold of an internal Democratic poll that shows Lieberman LOSING to Lamont among Jewish voters, 50-41.

But what is most striking is this statement by Droney "'I find the behavior of a large segment of the Jewish community to be reprehensible and outrageous,' said John Droney, a former chairman of the state party who is advising Lieberman to run as an independent. 'When he's in trouble like this, they all ought to rally to him. It's too bad that you have to listen to an Irish-American to realize that you've got to support your own home cooking.'" These guys have really lost it. Full article here.

ctblogger said...

Two words: Lisa Moody

justavoter said...

After reading this review of Lieberman and Lamont I have to ask which debate was Turfgrrl watching?

As a voter who will not be on vacation August 8th after seeing this debate I have made up my mind to vote for ned Lamont.

He came across direct and honest on the issues from the war to the Environment.

Lieberman on the otherhand came across as very angry that anyone should challenge him at all.

From what I can see Turfgrrl blindly supports Lieberman .

The Democratic Party needs to listen to the grassroots of the Party.

Turfgrrl if you like Lieberman then you might consider joining the Republican Party.

What we had last night was a Democrat debating a Republican which was Lieberman

Gabe said...

My agenda glasses are off...

Are we still seriously saying that Senator Lieberman was at ease?

Does at ease have a new meaning?

At Ease (adj) - Angry, Likely to interrupt, Unable to follow debate rules

Anonymous said...

Derby Con...you said it best.

Democrats are the party of what have you done for me lately.

JFK would be ashamed, the Democrats of this century do not ask what they can do for thier country but what the country can do for them...

BRubenstein said...

Zengrite...the "unaffiliated indie vote"..doesnt vote in the Democratic Primary unless they switch...you're obviously new to the "game" of politics..neither campaign has put forward any kind of " U to D program" that i am aware of...Lamont could have benefitted from one...maybe the same amateur sophmores are running the " U to D Program" who prepped him.

Anonymous said...

Jim--

Please understand that neither Joe nor Hadassah have released their 2005 tax returns. Lieberman is just being his hypocritical self, that's all

How do I know that they haven't been released? Because I am absolutely dying to know how much Hadassah got paid last year as a lobbyist for Hill & Knowlton! My guess is about $30/month, or $1500/working day, which is, of course, chump change when compared to the speaking fees she collected after Joe's 2000 rise to fame.

How much in speaking fees? $570,000, or about $114,000/annum. Not bad considering she worked only 44 days for the $570,000! That's right, a mere 44 appearances --at $13,000/day!

So yes, I'd love to know how much Mrs. Lieberman is getting paid to help "access" her husband.

And another thing I'd like to know about is Lamont v. Lieberman in terms of charitable giving. The Liebermans, who knows? But Ned Lamont is certainly a charitable guy. Heck, he even went so far as to give money to Joe!

justavoter said...

Your Blog should be changed to I Support Lieberman.com .

Instead of acting like your looking at this in an open and honest way.

Anonymous said...

Lamont was woefully unprepared, shame on his staff for letting him go out there unarmed.

GMR said...

I'll admit it, I didn't watch the debate. I was away over the fourth weekend, and after all the rain last week, I really needed to mow the lawn. And since I'm a Republican, I didn't need to see Lamont-Lieberman.

From reading this site, here's what I gather: Lamont supporters think Lamont won; Lieberman supporters think Lieberman won overwhelmingly. There seems to be a consistent view across both camps that Lamont's opening was weak. Lamont also seemed to have gotten tripped up by tax returns.

Do any Lamont supports think Lieberman won or vice-versa? More importantly, was anyone swayed by this debate? I don't just mean will anyone change their vote from Lamont to Lieberman or vice-versa, but does anyone know of anyone who was previously undecided but is now leaning one way or the other (I don't think anyone here was ever undecided).

Anonymous said...

Jim--

Please neither Joe nor Hadassah have released their 2005 tax returns. Lieberman is just being his hypocritical self.

How do I know that they haven't been released? Because I am absolutely dying to know how much Hadassah got paid last year as a lobbyist for Hill & Knowlton! My guess is about $30/month, or $1500/working day, which is, of course, chump change when compared to the speaking fees she collected after Joe's 2000 rise to fame.

How much in speaking fees? $570,000, or about $114,000/annum. Not bad considering she worked only 44 days for the $570,000! That's right, a mere 44 appearances --at $13,000/day!

So yes, I'd love to know how much Mrs. Lieberman is getting paid to help "access" her husband.

And another thing I'd like to know about is Lamont v. Lieberman in terms of charitable giving. The Liebermans, who knows? But Ned Lamont is certainly a charitable guy. Heck, he even went so far as to give money to Joe!

Zengerite said...

Gabe,

Maybe you still need the corrective vision- most Connecticut voters were not watching. They're discussing the weather, not whether Joe met the Oxford Dictionary definition of "at ease"- which by the way, I agree with you, he and Ned were not meeting.

Lamont and Lieberman and Millionaires.

It's been pointed out that Joe and Ned are both millionaires. That puts both of them out of step with us. But Ned is a deca-millionaire- and we'll never know to what extent. We'll never know where Ned and Annie's money comes from to a satisfactory level of detail. Sure, you can rightfully hone in on Joe and Haddasah's speaking engagement money, etc., but at least you have it in hand!

A reminder of the club that Ned Lamont conveniently quit before the race heated up:

The Round Hill Club

Does this look a place where all of you Lamonties would feel welcome? Anybody out there have any information on this club's demographic breakdown? Anybody think it reflects Connecticut's demographics? Did he have a reception for his kids from Harding High School there? (I'm just asking, maybe he did. That would say something.)

Joe has taken heat, and sometimes justifiably so, for all that we have learned about him in the past 30 years. We have to get up to speed on Ned in a hurry. If Connecticut voters like what they see when they get the full Ned, they'll go for it.

But this is a part of Ned, much like Hadassah's earnings, that should be put into evidence.

Hold on, a spark from the axe grinder got in my eye. Good thing I had my agenda glasses on during this post.

The True Gentleman said...

BRubenstein, I missed your post while I typed mine I guess. Thanks for the e-mail. I've heard such divergent viewpoints by so many different writers it was nice to hear your honest assessment of how the candidate you support did. Thanks for that!!

CTRevolution said...

I though Joe came out with a lot of passion in the first half of the debate and it was nice to see him fiery about what he believes. Imagine if he took that anger and actually stood up for the Democratic Party. Instead in his defenses of Bush and his previous debate with Cheney, it's obvious that Lieberman reserves his anger for his own party. How can the Democrats elect a man to senate who abuses his own party, who accuses the party's faithful of being on a jihad? It's like most people who I talk to in CT, Joe was somebody we would have voted for many years ago. The Democratic Party didn't leave Joe, he left the Democratic party and his anger at the left showed throughout the debate. His repeating of Republican talking points(cut and run, there you go again) won't be endearing him to Democrats soon. He might have come out angry and defended his legislative record, but to liberals he seemed antagonistic and out of touch with what the party stands for.

Goon Squad said...

Before the debate I was planning on voting for Lamont.

After the debate I dont think I can vote for either of them.

Only vote I have is a 'vote of no confidence.'

CC said...

kerryguy:

"sucked off the public teat"? Harsh rhetoric for our public servants, is it not? Furthermore Joe is NOT a millionaire. See his most recent financial disclosure by clicking below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/l000304.pdf

As to your assertion that Joe is himself a millionaire

CC said...

BRubenstein said...

CGG...they dont understand politics..its like talking to a 6 year old..the more they exclude liberals the lesser their chances of controling the white house or congress...you would think someone with experience would " get it" but clearly they dont.

BR: Where have you been since '72? Look at the decline of the Democrat party since that year! (For example, the Democrats have won exactly zero southern electoral votes in the 21st Century.) The Democrat party's losses at the ballot box are commenserate to the liberal influence on the party. The ousting of Joe Lieberman from the party would only serve to bolster that trend....

BRubenstein said...

CC...if you stop reading from the DLC playbook for one minute you would see that if the liberal's left the party...the party would shrink by more then 50%..and then your conservatives would control..a minor party...

Perhaps the reason why Democrats havent won the presidency since 72 is because with the exception of Carter and Clinton we have had LOUSY CANDIDATES,stupid advisors and greedy operatives.

Beating Lieberman is a worthy even for those of us who feel the country is heading in the wrong direction...

Anonymous said...

I feel sorry for you guys that support Lieberman. Its actually funny reading your comments though, like old businessmen trying to do the hip-hop. Or, like Lieberman flashing urban-hand signs to his peeps at the Willamantic parade. It is clear that Lieberman's supporters consist of people who will benefit from his continued pork shovelling and good old boy politics. So keep up the good posts! See you in November!

BRubenstein said...

CC...how wrong you are..Joe is a millionaire...the financial disclosure has alot of exemptions...if his undisclosed assets were thrown in...he would be a multi-millionaire...Be that as it may...Joe has sold himself to any lobbyist and corporate whore that has a dollar to give him..Lamont with all his wealth doesnt need to be beholden to anyone other then the thousands of small donors who have given to his campaign.

MightyMouse1 said...

For those true progressives, in today's The Hill, Chris Murphy shows his true stripes.

“With very rare exceptions, there are not coattails in Connecticut politics,” Murphy told The Hill. “For those of us that have been close to Joe in the Dem Party, I think it’s more surprising than it is disappointing,”

BRubenstein said...

CC...how wrong you are..Joe is a millionaire...the financial disclosure has alot of exemptions...if his undisclosed assets were thrown in...he would be a multi-millionaire...Be that as it may...Joe has sold himself to any lobbyist and corporate whore that has a dollar to give him..Lamont with all his wealth doesnt need to be beholden to anyone other then the thousands of small donors who have given to his campaign.

Sue123 said...

Turfgrrl, it looks like you think that Joe must be doing his job - so when was the last time he visited your town? Funny, nobody else in Connecticut's seen him (except for a few photo ops at failing Bridgeport schools or his famously unattended diner stops).
Perhaps you are a member of a labor movement (but not one of those who equated Joe with 'the worst president in our history'). They've decided to try to stick it out til the next election - reluctantly.
Maybe you are a member of Planned Parenthood - the lone voice in the wilderness of pro-choice women's groups to support him (the others are here:
http://www.connecticutchoicevoice.com/
No? Well you are not a teacher - the Connecticut Teachers Association has Ned's back.
So who exactly are you? You don't temp for the Wall St. Journal's editiorial dept, by chance?

Sue123 said...

Wait! Your own poll 3 inches down has Joe at 31%, Ned at 60%.

Better read those polls - your readers are speaking volumes.

turfgrrl said...

cgg-- sorry there, Ned had nothing but soundbites since he couldn't seem to do anything but repeat his sloganeering campaign. Take Iraq, his response was so scripted to his talking points that he couldn't take a step back and talk about recent events. The Iraqi government has put a plan on the table, poor Ned couldn't acknowledge it. Lieberman clarified his position at least, that to leave without ensuring that the Iraq's could maintain security was bad. Lieberman then went on to draw a parallel with Bosnia, the last time Lieberman took up a position that withdrawal of US troops before Bosnia could maintain security was bad. Does Lamont even know where Bosnia is? Does he understand that the parallels between Bosnia and Iraq are much stronger than those between Vietnam and Iraq? I don't think so, Lamont wimpily says "[get our] troops out of harm's way", which is a slogan, not a plan of action that could be debated on its merits.

MikeCT said...

turfgrrl,
Did Lamont do anything well? Did Lieberman do anything wrong? Are either of those things possible in your world?

LitchfieldAngelina said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

LitchfieldAngelina said... "
is it necessary for Lieberman to essentially take America's enemies' viewpoints (as most Democrats do these days) in order for him to still be a Democrat?"



Is it possible to tell a lunatic that he or she is crazy?

Would they believe you?

Isn't that essentially what your post attempts to do?


Why bother?
The longer these people live in their own delirium the better our chances of maintaining control of both houses of congress.


Besides, I'm not sure even shock therapy could help some of them.

Zack said...

"Why bother?
The longer these people live in their own delirium the better our chances of maintaining control of both houses of congress."

Aaah yes, the "NA-NA-NA-NA-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU" Method of Conservative debate. You can set your watch to it.

I mean, you can't gain any actual intelligence from it, but at least your watch works.

Unless it was built in another country thanks to NAFTA.

Zack said...

"Or is it not obvious that the Democrats have left him by deciding to take positions which are blatant attempts to damage the USA?"

You've got us pegged. The reason we are discussing a Senate race in a quasi-public forum is because we hate America. That must be it.

"The irresponsible anti-war effort damages the Democratic Party and America -- but it actually helps the Republican Party relative to the Democratic Party."

If you want to ignore, oh, every poll on the planet that says most Americans agree with the anti-war movement's claims that this war was a disasterous mistake, yes, the war has helped the Republican Party.

"Don't y'all get it? Why did Bush win the Presidential election in 2004?"

Did you ever stop and think that saying idiotic things, such as equating the anti-war movement to terrorism, is the reason the Republican Party has gotten it's butt-kicked in most major state elections since 1988?

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Zack said... "
the Republican Party has gotten it's butt-kicked in most major state elections since 1988?"



Don't check your facts do you?

The GOP controls more state legislatures now than at any time in decades.

Further, last November the GOP took control of more towns in CT than at any time in over 60 years.



Maybe you should try talking to some people that aren't stoned.

BRubenstein said...

ACR and Angelina....

when you call liberals and leftists "lunatics" and state that their positions are
blatent attemps to damage the USA" you are accussing many millions of good citizens with siding with Al Queda and Bin Laden...what's next, torture camps for us?

I realize its hard in your world to understand this but many of us believe that Bush,Lieberman et all share the blame in not capturing Bin Laden because the idiots took the troops out of Afganistan and sent them to Iraq...furthermore, every policy dispute one has doesnt mean the one you disagree with is un-american...im very very disappointed in the both of you..

LitchfieldAngelina said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

BRubenstein said... "
accussing many millions of good citizens with siding with Al Queda and Bin Laden...
"


Bruce; then stop siding with Bin Laden! War is no time for pragmatism; it's a straight up or down, true or false, yes or no.....

No grey area at all.


"what's next, torture camps for us?

Considering how smokers are getting treated by the far left; it's I that should be worried.

We haven't been the movers behind MADD; absurd speed limits set more for revenue enhancement than for public safety; a slew of anti-tobacco lies and subsequent laws and regulations that both invade private property and bankrupt previously prosperous small breakfast diners.

Yet you worry about us???

We just want to be left alone with a cigarette, coffee and the morning paper, and to that end are clearly more concerned with national security.

Bin Laden didn't make me stop having breakfast at the same place I had everyday for over 25 years; Chris Murphy did.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

LitchfieldAngelina said... "
is it really so difficult to support the U.S. government during a war?"


Apparently it is.



We should have coffee sometime; you're alright.

Zengerite said...

Brubenstein-

I was referring to Lieberman's performance in that debate as being targeted not only at Dems, but also at indy voters- anticipating a potential general election. Joe is playing major league baseball- and you can't see him working the corners!

I am well aware that a) there will be no movement from unaff to D, b) that fortunately for Lamont, there is no cross-over primary.

I've been working around CT politics for a looong time. Perhaps longer than you, I don't know or care. Let's put it this way. I cleaned Abe Ribicoff's glasses for him at the Danbury Fair. Not the Danbury Fair Mall. The actual Danbury Fair.

Anonymous said...

So many of the pro-Lieberman replies here assume that the military operation in Iraq is "good for the USA".

That's not necessarily the case. Most world opinion does not think so. I'm convinced that what's going on in Iraq is bad for the US, and the world.

If it is, then it's bad to stand behind the US government's operation in Iraq -- and behind the President who backs it.

That's what much of this race is about -- it's a fair debate on whether the Iraq operation is good or bad for the United States and for the world.

LitchfieldAngelina said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I figured I'd give Lamont a shot, because Lieberman has been around for a long time and I'm sick of the way Bush is miring us in Iraq. I thought that maybe Lamont could be another Wellstone. Then I watched that debate. Lamont was as unimpressive as Bush was next to Kerry. He was an empty suit and just wasn't fit to be Lieberman's peer. It was like watching a high school kid trying to play grownup.

And I don't care if Lieberman was charming or ticked off. He was a grownup next to a punk.

I thought Lamont might have been a Wellstone, but he looks like Richie Rich trying to buy a Senate seat. He is no Jon Corzine or Mark Warner, either. Those guys have something to them and are real Democrats, not just rich guys buying a title.

Lamont symbolizes the Gravitas Gap -- and if my great granddaddy was J.P. Morgan's partner, I'd be able to brag about starting big businesses and volunteering, too. So kind of Ned. He's blessed to be born in America, he tells us -- yeah, and a hell of a lot more. I wonder his positions on the inheritance tax and capital gains, and if he's sent jobs overseas. Maybe there are a few reasons he doesn't let us see his tax returns.

I'm glad Saddam is gone even while I'm mad Bush has screwed up putting Iraq back together again. But I know that, after I'm finished letting off steam with a vote for Lamont, I'm left with one more lightweight dilletante in Washington -- and a liberal George Bush isn't what I want. I want a senator who matters, not a lightweight. I gave Lamont his chance. No thanks, Ned, I'm back to voting for Lieberman. I know when Lieberman takes on Bush on Gitmo and getting the war wrapped up, it will matter. When Lamont does, or tries to do anything else in Washington, nobody will listen. Lamont is no Wellstone.

Anonymous said...

If the Dem party left the liberals they would lose 50% of the party and be a minor party? Maybe. But they also would get a lot more independent and Republican crossover support, so I am not convinced they would be any worse off. The only true minority party would be the 50% of liberals who they kicked out.

Anonymous said...

anon -

Ned released a statement in early june fully opposing any repeal of the estate tax. he has spoken against all of bush's tax cuts - including cap gains cuts (unlike joe), and he has been responsible for sending precisely ZERO jobs overseas.

But way to further a lot of incorrect stereotypes. Tell me again how it's Ned buying the seat, when Joe is the one who's campaign warchest dwarfs the Lamont campaign's, yet who has done so with far fewer total donors?