Friday, July 07, 2006

The Endless Debate Thread

Post whatever thoughts you have left on the debate here. Most of the reaction I'm seeing out there is that Lamont did okay, but that Lieberman may have shot himself in the foot. Since expectations for Lieberman were pretty high (after all, he's an 18-year veteran of the Senate, and has run for president and vice president), that translates into sort of a win for Lamont.

CTLP reaction here:
Genghis Conn's first impressions
Debate poll

Other sites:
My Left Nutmeg
Colin McEnroe

Scroll down for more content--we've got lots to say today.


David said...

Lamont did well enough for a newcomer to the national scene. I am not sure Lieberman shot himself in the foot, but his demeanor almost made him look like the challenger. He was on the attack for a lot of the time. He also seemed nonplused that someone like Lamont had the ability/right to run against him

Anonymous said...

can we please get back to MOODY???

God, what does a democratic gubernatorial candidate have to do?!!

The True Gentleman said...

What is there to get back to about Moody? Either the Committee prusues charges against her, or it doesn't. There's nothing else to talk about here (Chris MC saw to that).

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Anonymous said... "
can we please get back to MOODY???

Nope; no traction there.


Thanks for playing, better luck next time. (That'll be 4 years from now.)

TrueBlueCT said...

live-blogging MSNBC's Hardball right now:

Losing his Mo-Joe? (that's the subtitle of this segment, love it!)

Norah O'Donnell:
What has happened to Joe Lieberman that he has to say in Connecticut that he's no George Bush?

Norah calls Ned Lamont well prepared. ???

Bob Shrum says Joe went out their with a hatchet in his hand... will voters like that? Or does it signal a certain level of desperation.

(Just saw myself in the background at the Willy parade)

Ben Ginsberg says this might be the start of a Dem turn-around.

Shrum says this is CT voters chance to speak strongly against this war.

Ginsberg bringing up "litmus test" bullshit.

Talk of Joe's principled stand. (What principle, "I'm right, and you're wrong?)

Wow, too much fun. Lieberman's in big trouble when even virtual wingers like Norah O'Donnell take Lamont's side. Joe's setting himself up to be a national joke. Do you think Letterman and Leno will be kind to Joe in defeat??

Anonymous said...

Per the AP looks like the CW is solidifying the Joe hurt himself in the debate...looks like Dinardo is pretty much out there by herself in this article!!

(sorry I don't know how to make links)

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

Lieberman forgot the other question. Who is Annie Lamont? (You know, the woman who seconded Ned's nomination.) What are her business interests?

Mitt Romney's private equity interests were raised by Ted Kennedy in 1994 when Mitt got too close for comfort.

It's possible that Annie has created most of the Lamont family wealth that is being invested in this campaign. This raises questions- we're looking at them over at Zengerite.

MikeCT said...

Joe is now proudly channeling Reagan.

AB said...

Amazing....its amazing to me how modern democrats are. Lieberman has been a loyal Democrat his entire career, including running for VP and President. Now because he took a position on the war contrary to the liberal base and unlike his lying two faced counterpart John Kerry, has been consistent in his position, liberal democrats are trying to run him out of town and tell him hes really a Republican and should run as one? Thats a thanks for ya Senator. To hell with all that you did for your party and for the state, we dont like your position on the war and will run you out because of it.

Its the same mentality these people took with Zell Miller who was more democrat by blood than anyone. His mother was a Democrat, he served his whole life as one...but because he stood up and screamed how his party was broken they turned ugly on him.

Yep, thats today's Democrat....ugly, bitter and only interested in what has been doen for them today. Is there any wonder mthe majority of centrist americans dont identify with the democratic party?

BRubenstein said...

Zengerite and Aaron...nothing you can do ro say is going to change anyone's mind...the primary is a month away..dont you think its time to get off the blame game for this primary and to begin to talk the tevhnicalities of the primary....face it dudes, there will be a primary.

bluecoat said...

Now because he (JOE) took a position on the war contrary to the liberal base and unlike his lying two faced counterpart John Kerry, has been consistent in his position, says Aaron B. but actually it was Joe that took the easy way out. Kerry didn't lie about anything; like Joe he voted for the use of necessary force to disarm saddam Hussein in late 2002 but unlike Joe, Kerry counseled Bush (face to face BTW) "Mr. President, don't rush to war" but Bush did and Kerry has criticized Bush for that and Bush has never acknowledged the advice and counsel happened...

Anonymous said...


BRubenstein said...

Bluecoat...furthermore when kerry found out the whole pretext for the war was a lie and phoney..he changed his position...Joe facing the same facts didnt..and still believes in the war, even in the face of lying and misleading by his friends Bush and Cheney.

bluecoat said...

I have never heard Kerry say it was a lie but I have heard him say we were misled...I think there is a difference...

bluecoat said...

Morano will reopent the investigation and find for one reason or another he can't proceed with criminal charges; he did it with Malloy after getting a friendly phone call from McDonald and he did it with the 13 Commissioners of Moodygate not to mention finding a judge who wouldn't sign the arrest warrant ofr Rowland; end of story...except for the political junkies....

BRubenstein said...

Bluecoat....some gov't officials misled and some lied...the difference is merely symantical.

Anonymous said...

Bruce, I find it interesting in defending Kerry from charges of lying your defense is that he is easily duped. I can't say this makes me dissatified with the 2004 election.

Better one who can dupe as President that the one who was duped.

Perhaps the leaked transcripts do show that Bush was really brighter than Kerry.

bluecoat said...

absurd and juvenile statements by an anoymous when the issue is about American lives...lovely

Anonymous said...

So much for the R candidate having a chance at the seat. Bob Novak may be the evil emperor but he certainly is well connected to Republicans in DC who say:

"Lieberman's Republican Senate colleagues privately despair of the GOP picking up the Connecticut seat. But they hope Lieberman, if elected as an independent, would be more inclined to vote with Republicans than he is now, even if he still caucuses with the Democrats."

Two excellent points here:

1) No matter what happens in a 2 way or 3 way race this is going to be a Democratic seat.

2) Despite Joe's claims, if he wins as an independent, he's going to abandon the party even more and continue to be a rubber stamp for bush!

(I await turrfies and patricias attacks on me, while they claim Ned is negative)

MikeCT said...

Debate will be re-broadcast on the CT Network at 7 pm tonight.

Also archived on C-SPAN (search) and Politics TV.

turfgrrl said...

Anonymous-- Actually I think it is a risk for the Democrats. Lieberman elected as an independent could present problems depending on the makeup of the Senate. If the Democrats pick up senate seats, that is.

Aside from that the real GOP play here is if Lieberman loses the primary. The GOP will mount a stronger candidate because they have no downside.

Anonymous said...

bluecoat,,,,I do not trust American lives with a would be commander in chief who is easily duped, though based on his activities with the NVA in 1972, it probably wasn;t the first time

GMR said...

A three-way race of Lieberman, Lamont and presumably Schlesinger will almost certainly result in Lieberman winning, and Schlesinger would probably come in third.

Furthermore, I would imagine that a three-way race would help Democrats in down-ticket races, including Congressional seats and state senate and house seats, as you'd get heavy Democrat turnout. (The only thing that could have an impact is that many Democrats will vote Rell, then Lieberman, so they're not voting straight ticket, and may look at the next few races a bit more closely). Another thing a three way race will do is deprive down-ticket Democrats of volunteers, who'll all be working for Lamont or Lieberman.

However, for the national Democrat Party, a three way race is an absolute disaster.

You've already got Wellstone and Hillary saying they'd endorse Lamont if he won the primary. You've got other Senators who have basically said they'll back Lieberman. So in any event, there'd be a split within the Democrats in the Senate about whether to support Joementum or Crazy Ned. Don't think that the media isn't going to pound that issue, and relentlessly ask Democrats who haven't made a commitment who they are supporting.

Lieberman's running as an independent essentially says: The Democrat primary voters are too far out of the mainstream to be trusted. That'll go over well with the base in the rest of the country.

Various Democrat activist groups like MoveOn are going to make financing Ned's campaign their #1 priority.

This could be a major schism in the Democrat party.

And if there's a three-way race, do you think anyone is going to give a damn about DM or JDS?

Anonymous said...

hooray, turfgrrl and I agree on something :)

I still remain dubious about a stronger R candidate though until I see one.

Although right now Joe polls well in 3 way, remember the huge swing that's happening now in the D primary.

I's in the state are unhappy with the war, with the energy bill, etc.

I expect a similar shift in the general, will it be enough to win? That is the million doller question!

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

GMR said... "do you think anyone is going to give a damn about DM or JDS??

Does anyone now?

Zengerite said...


I agree that we should look at the technalities of the primary, as you describe it.

The media is clearly in love with this story- it's everywhere. And they love the notion of an old lion being taken down. My media friends don't have a dog in the fight- they just like a good story. And they'll tell you that. A lot of them like Joe personally- he's pretty accessible to them. But they will drive this thing as far as it will go.

The technical question is whether Ned has peaked yet- and what will the turn-out look like. I don't think we can give terrific predictive answers on that. I think the Lieberman supporters will be scared enough- and angry enough to put together more of a showing than anticipated. Any increase in turnout from the gubernatorial primary, will, I think, bring out more Joe supporters- because establishment Dems tend to turn out for gubes.

Also, as we learn more about Ned and Annie Lamont, the balloon may shrink. This will be an intense 4 weeks ahead.

But here's the really important thing- when Howard Dean's anti-war message tanked in 2004, so did the anti-war movement. When Dean became the favorite, the darling horse, he and his positions took a hard fall. And the electorate went for John Kerry, who actually was a pro-war Dem at the time. (Hard to remember this...) The War became less of an issue in the general, which was quite an achievement on the part of the Democrats.

Here, you've got a 50/50 chance (probably more) of losing the primary with Dems- that would be a huge victory for Bush. And you've got a 95% chance of losing in the general, if you get your primary victory. Either way, you've ratified the war.

Anonymous said...

yeah - the war will be ratified either way. except, of course, for the fact that Joe is running his entire campaign on the theme "vote for me for everything I do other than the war," "agree to disagree", etc.

Hard to see that as any form of ratification...

if he were running on the platform - vote for me because I did the right thing on iraq. yay me!, and he won, then that would indeed be a ratification. but he's not.


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

Nice try, anonymous.

Lamontites will have it both ways. If Ned wins, it means, "Democrats are taking a stand on the war." But if he loses, we'll hear "well, you know, Joe really was running on his whole record, which was pretty good, and uh, ahem, you know, Ned um.. despite everything Ned was just a novice running against a national figure- and, um, despite Joe's win, Democrats here are still pretty united behind Ned's position(s) on Iraq."

(Feel free to paste that on your clipboard for use on 8/9 or November...)

If Joe wins, either CT Dems agree with him on the war or simply, the conduct of the war is just not that important to Connecticut Democrats. Which the media and every spin-monkey will take it to mean it can't be that much of an issue to national Democrats, despite the pleadings of Kos and others.

Gephardt's 2004 message (which was on the message that Iraq was "a miserable failure") was a "miserable failure". Dean's message (which was a more consistent one than Ned's in terms of prescription) was also a failure. Hence, the debate about the war in the general was not really a debate. The Iowans ratified the War in 2004. Lamont is putting it on the CT ballot again in 2006.

turfgrrl said...

Zengerite --Your takeaway on the 2004 presidential is accurate. The war was not the big issue for the electorate at large in '04, and is not in '06 either. Frankly it's not a war anymore, it's an occupation when speaking of Iraq.

The global war on terrorism, that is the actual political philosophy point that could gain traction, if the dots are connected between ill conceived tactics (military vs. intelligence see UK/IRA) and out of control spending benefiting the politically connected (see Halliburton, KKG, Duke Cunningham, et al.) But of course that's not the argument that most Democrats tend to take on.

BRubenstein said...

GMR..thank you about the recent quote from Wellstone...too bad he has been dead for years....did you talk to him over a crystal ball?

GMR said...

Oops, my bad, not Wellstone. I meant Feingold (both are traditional liberals from NFC Central states, both seem to be fairly consistent in their views. Except that Feingold is living).

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

Zengerite -

Here's the thing, though - if Joe somehow wins on Aug. 8, it will clearly be DESPITE his unflinching support for the war, not because of it, that he wins. and Ned would not have lost due to his opposition for the war, but rather because voters decided he was not about more THAN the war.

This is not spin, it is truth. Lieberman is running away from iraq, and towards everything else. igf you want to rgue that the majority of Lieberman supporters support his views on iraq, then you are being willfuly ignorant - look at all the recent polls that show large majorities of Democrats opposing the war and favoring some sort of withdrawal.