The real joke in all this is the fact that I don't think anybody really thought that Lamont had a chance in the beginning and were just hoping to put some pressure on Lieberman to stop kissing Bush on the lips.
...
Instead, he has been testy and superior, behaving as if he were entitled to the seat --- even saying in the debate this week that his old mentor would have counselled Lamont not to run for the good of the party. This from the man who says he doesn't care what the party decides in its primary. [Typo Corrected]
So, is Joe Lieberman his own worst enemy?
Yes. Yes, he is.
So....... The Senator has a new ad out...
Video here.
Complete story here.
Did no one think to themselves, roughly around the time they were editing the final line of the ad, you know, the one that says, "I'm Joe Lieberman and I approve this message", "Maybe we shouldn't create an ad with a fake Ned Lamont bumper sticker that has a fake website address previously used for a GOP primary in Arizona, and maybe we shouldn't make it look as much like the real Ned Lamont bumper stickers as we can, and maybe we shouldn't use the word "ELSE" (emphasis in ad) to imply that the bumper sticker is actually put out by the Lamont campaign, and maybe, just maybe, if we did all that and it was in the ad that the law requires our candidate approve verbally, it might, I don't know, make him look like a liar"?
Really, how hard is it to get a job running a Senate campaign? I would have thought that it would be harder than getting to be the GM of the Knicks, but apparently it isn't.
One last point (which, in fairness, I am about the last person to write about): No where in the ad or in any text does the campaign mention the word "Democrat". Still "totally focused on winning the Democratic primary" or trying out ads for the indy run?
11 comments:
It's very fashionable these days for Democrats not to mention their party affiliation in campaign materials. Maybe it's true of Republicans, too, but I'm not sure about that. I recently received fund-raising letters and materials from two former classmates, one in Wyoming and one in Maryland, neither of which mentioned the party (and I looked everywhere). There may be no better symbol of how rudderless the Democrats are. How are they ever going to reclaim the soul of the American voter if they are too timid to mention the "D" word?
I will say that this strategy didn't work very well for Jim Sullivan against Simmons in 2004. He had an ad (strongly reminiscent of a current Lamont ad) in which Simmons morphed into Bush and back again.
Gio: I think you should re-do your analysis and combine Gore/Nader in 2000 and Kerry/Nader in 2004. It's likely the only reason that the Democrats vote increased between 2000 and 2004 in CT was that some Nader voters of 2000 "came home" to the Democrats in 2004.
Did anyone else see Hamzy's editorial on Moody today? Question, does it do more harm than good? Article Here
Digby = she
Good post.
Tim
Hi, I'm new to blogging at this site so please bear with me If I am repeating anyone else's past comments..
For me the reason Joe should go is this is the first time in the last six years he has shown much more than just a token interest in his senate seat. Certainly no one could be critical of him running for VP as Al Gore's choice. But I did take issue when he also ran for his senate seat at the same time, with virtually no campaigning here in the state. He just took us for granted as a back up job. A point that I have not seen mentioned was that at that time Rowland was governor, and had Joe been elected VP, Rowland certainly would have appointed a Republican to take his place. If Joe really put his party's interest first, he would have resigned his senate seat to run for VP, and allow another Democrat to chance to have been elected and prevent that certain Rowland move.
Instead, Joe put his own interests first. Then four years later with no need to concern himself for reelection, he then runs for President, and spends another year listening to everyone else around the country. Does Joe want to be Senator, VP, or President? I guess now we are to believe Senator.
He now tells us he will run as an independent, if necessary, to be sure we voters have the chance to vote on his record. But at the same time he almost seems to act as if he is actually insulted that anyone from his own party has the gall to challenge him, and give the voters another choice.
I don't know the reasons why Al Gore after selecting Joe to be his Vice Presidential candidate two years ago choose to support someone other than Joe for President, but it seems Al Gore must have seen something in Joe that bothered him as well.
My gut tells me Joe's current problems have less to do with any support he has given President Bush over the years, and more to do with a growing uneasiness more and more people in this state have with Joe himself.
Just some thoughts from a new guy here... Al
Looks to me like no core values- no wonder Chris can be against the war and support Joe.
Gio,
"It was my understanding that math should play no role in this debate." Your analysis- and the other observation about the Nader vote- is dead on- 2004 represented a swing toward lighter blue. This Lamont race, if Lieberman plays it correctly, will put him right in the center, which will stand him well against Brand X with the 50% of unaffils in CT.
Most of you guys are not being practical here. As BigGulp observed, Chris Murphy is hurt by this. Simmons is helped, as is Shays. Ned Lamont's experiment will prove costly to the progressive cause.
Edited for the correct pronoun.
25 comments and not one even mentions the fake bumper sticker?
I did not find the ad to be negative, it was largely a positive ad for Joe. (Let me be clear, I am a Lieberman supporter.)
On another issue, I wonder how the Electric Boat layoffs will play into November's elections in the 2nd CD as well as the state-wide campaigns. Anyone have any comments?
Paul - let me clarify - my issue with the ad wasn't that it was negative, it was that the bumper sticker the ad is based on does not exist...
Post a Comment