Monday, July 03, 2006

Lamont Responds to Lieberman Announcement

Excerpts from Ned Lamont's response to Joe Lieberman's announcement earlier today:
On the one hand, Lamont said, "The war is a big issue. It speaks volumes about what kind of a country we are."

On the other hand, Lamont said his campaign focuses on a host of issues on which he and Lieberman disagree, citing the energy bill, school vouchers, and Alito's Supreme Court nomination.

...

He did characterize Lieberman's independent petitioning as in keeping with the senator's stands on issues like school vouchers, social security, and the Supreme Court nominations of Alito and Clarence Thomas -- as "hedging his bets."

Lamont also responded to Lieberman's argument that Lamont's personal wealth (estimated at between $90 and $300 million) requires Lieberman to take extra steps to compete fairly. Lamont noted that Lieberman has had up to $7 million in the bank and far outspent the Lamont campaign...

"If he wants to cap spending, let's go at it," Lamont said, referring to a previous challenge to Lieberman to agree to a maximum each campaign would spend. He noted that Lieberman has raised millions from "corporate lobbyists." Lamont added that "well over 10,000 people" have made small donations to his campaign.

"If he wants to run as a Democrat, run as a Democrat. Stop gaming the system," Lamont said. "Over 18 years on a lot of issues, he has tried to have it both ways." (Bass)

Paul Bass portrays Lamont as cool, calm and confident. Which he has every right to be, considering Joe Lieberman just gave him the best shot he's going to have at a Senate seat.

The primary is Lamont's to win. His first big test will come on Thursday night--when he'll have to face the cameras and Joe Lieberman not as a plucky upstart, but as a serious contender who is expected to carry the primary. Everyone will be watching to see how he does.

I hope you weren't planning on doing anything for the next month.

Source

Bass, Paul. "Lieberman Launches "Cut & Run" Campaign." New Haven Independent 3 July, 2006.

51 comments:

MikeCT said...

Weird and evasive answers from Joe Lieberman on CNN via Crooks & Liars.

Untroubled by the law, he says, "I'm not going to be unafilliated if I have to petition my way onto the ballot. I'm going to be a Democrat"

"I'm essentially taking out an insurance policy"

Says he's worried that no one will show up on primary day.

TrueBlueCT said...

What did the reporter say that made Joe jump in the car and run away?

Did he/she bring up Joe's strong approval ratings, --from Republicans! (65-70%, i.e. twenty points higher than his 45-50% Democratic numbers.)

Which Senate Dems are coming to Connecticut on Joe's behalf? Are any of them willing to be seen with TurnCoat Joe?

And did Lieberman ever tell us if he views his politics to be to the right, or the left of Lamont's.

So many great questions. Yet I predict the debate will be boring as heck. The highlight will be when Joe says, "I'm a JFK-like Dem" for the third or fourth time, and Lamont will have to cut in and say, "Joe, you're becoming delusional."

Patricia Rice said...

To Bruce & Ned Supporters: If Senator Lieberman wins the primary, will you support him?

This is the second time I am asking and I am beginning to think you don't want to answer the question.

So you know, I will support Senator Lieberman to the end! Now, will you Ned supporters have the courage to state your positions?

ctblogger said...

Patricia,

Ned Lamont, his supporters, and myself (on several occasions) have stated that we will support the Democratic nominee after the primary. If it's Lieberman, so be it, he has our back, it's that simple.

Unlike Senator Lieberman, supporters of Lamont support and work for the good of the Democratic Party.

After today, I don't think the same can be said for Joe "Oedipus Tyrannus" Lieberman.

MikeCT said...

Video of Ned Lamont's news conference is on his blog.

TrueBlueCT said...

Pat you're a Lieber-whore to the death?) (and not a true Democrat?) Who would have guessed.

I'm all for primaries, the two party system, and the democratic process. As such, I'd reluctantly "support" Lieberman were he to win on August 8th.

Now can you tell us what you think of Joe's negative campaigning. Do you think Lamont is a stealth Republican, (as Joe want us to believe), or is he an out-of-touch Lefty.

And do you really think LYING is okay if it's part of a political campaign?

MikeCT said...

This miscellaneous note from CT News Junkie:
Lieberman said he got the message about the petitions out “quickly and early“, but for the local media who have hounded him over the issue for about two months now today’s announcement seemed like an eternity. It also came as a slap in the face, since Lieberman told The Cook Report, a national newsletter, more than a week ago that he would run as an independent.

way2moderate said...

``

way2moderate said...

Joe is toast. Stick a fork in him. It's a shame, really, because he is a genuinely decent and honorable guy. But years of working the national scene to pursue national office, at the expense of his ties to this state, eventually took their toll. It's a shame, but not entirely unexpected.

Ebpie said...

Personally this all came as a shock to me. I remember hearing a year or so ago the rumblings of a primary challenge to Lieberman. I didn't think much of it at the time. At most I thought it would be some gadfly who couldn't raise any real money. Now our junior Senator, probably the most famous Democratic Senator after Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton, is on the verge of leaving his party. The same party he led in 2000 and tried to lead in 2004. That Lamont has come this far is a real testament to the growing power of grassroots insurgents. They were the ones who brought him out and it was on their wave that he initially rode. After that opening phase, thanks in large part to his personal fortune, Lamont has been able to establish himself as a credible candidate who just might become our next Senator in Washington. No matter what happens after this I think we are seeing a fundamental change in the way campaigns and politics are conducted. I have no doubt that I am stating the obvious to most people here, but the events of today have really struck it home to me.

I also think Lamont has put together a solid campaign team. They too deserve a lot of the credit. His commercials have been witty, funny and informative. I do a lot of driving around the state and I have seen more Lamont yard signs and bumper stickers than all other campaigns combined. Literally every person I have talked to about this issue (and it’s quite a few) has seen at least one Lamont yard sign or bumper sticker. Contrast this with the Lieberman campaign. The shock of having to run a real race seems to have only just set in on them. One would think that with Lieberman’s supposed influence and power both on the national and local stage he would have been able to squash this primary challenge long before the convention. Yet here we are a little more than a month away from August 8th. Who knows what will happen.

cgg said...

I'll hold my nose and vote for Lieberman should he win. When you're on the left you find yourself doing that a lot. Moderates aren't often forced to vote in service to the party.

But I question whether anyone who signs one of those petitions is a real Democrat.

Chris MC said...

Bruce, however, refuses to commit to supporting either Malloy or Lieberman if they win the primary.

C'mon Bruce, this is easy. Say you'll support Lieberman if he wins the primary. Say you'll support Malloy. Show us you are a loyal Democrat.

BRubenstein said...

Chris and Pat Rice....im just amazed that you both are following Joe out of the party...then again....good riddance...im supporting the winner of the primary...NED LAMONT !!!!!!!!! cowardly Joe will spend his dough ( he couldnt use it in a independant race) try to bleed Lamont and then announce a few days before the primary, that he is dropping out.

Frankly he can take Pat,Chris and other conservatives with him.

BRubenstein said...

GC..you either fell down on the job or purposely fell down..a debate pizza party would have been fun....

ct_husky said...

It's finally happened...this whole Lieberman-Lamont fiasco has finally caused me to break down and sign up just so I can rant a bit. Here's my problem with this whole mess Sen. Lieberman is perpetuating: as a registered Dem, I feel like the Senator just gave me the finger and told me my vote doesn't matter. Now, granted, I'm as idealistic as possible when it comes to the whole question of what a democracy really means...but this is just ridiculous. Moreover, its kind of disenfranchising to hear this kind of talk from the Senator about "crusades and jihads" and all the other quotes we've seen over the past handful of weeks alluding to today's immediately infamous decision. I understand the Senator's point about "diversity of opinion" (to an extent). That's what makes the whole political process worthwhile - challenging one another's opinions in an effort to find one that best benefits society as much as possible. I just have a hard time reconciling that statement with today's decision to, in effect, tell the Connecticut Democratic voter that their choice means nothing. Not to be overly melodramatic (even though I will anyway), but it seems to be yet another sad day in Connecticut politics. We have FAR too much of those...

Sorry for the first-post soapbox, I'll do my best to ramble less next time.

Chris MC said...

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce. Sauce for the goose, Brucie boy. You are the one who won't commit to supporting the winner of the Gubernatorial primary. By your own definition, you aren't a loyal Democrat. But integrity and principles are for other people, huh?

BRubenstein said...

chris chris chris...i'll attend your briss.....im supporting JDS...and he will win....BTW..you refused every wager on it i proposed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TrueBlueCT said...

ChrisMc-
So we're clear for the record, I didn't "out" Turfgirl. CTKeith, then Bluecoat did, and if I could put the genie back in the bottle, I would.

I did pick-up on her falseness, which led me to discover her conflict of interest vis-a-vis Joe Lieberman's campaign manager Lynn Fusco.

If she had ever come out and claimed to be an ardent Lieberman supporter, and not pretended to impartiality, the criticsms would be less severe. And yeah, I think people need to basically disclose where they are coming from.

Like we all know you are a Lieberman person, but will you become a Liebercrat after August 8th? If so, what's in it for you? Anything? You sure seem to have signed onto the Malloy campaign, in full.

The bigger context of this discussion is that paid bloggers are starting to show up on these grassroots sites. It's not the end of the world if people get paid to opine, but when they pretend to be people they aren't, (i.e. grassroots folks), the debate gets desecrated.

Chris MC said...

TB, so we're clear for the record, I didn't accuse you of outing turfgrrl. I was talking about the practice. And your admonition of Keith, though mild, did not go unnoticed.

Your impugning of me, on the other hand, is at best irresponsible, and you should make a greater effort where I am concerned. I do for you.

Your failure to evaluate Malloy on his record does you poorly, too. You appear to have become another "useful idiot" (to coin a phrase) in the service of the very forces you spend so much of your valuable time opposing.

"Paid" bloggers is the bigger context? Desecrated? What do you think Bruce is doing here? I did not think you to be a dupe, but....

turfgrrl said...

truebluect --I appreciate that you want to stuff the genie back in the bottle, but you'll have to start with yourself first. One, Fusco is not Lieberman's campaign manager. Two, I haven't had a business relationship with the Fusco corporation in about 10 years. Three, I have zero contact with the Lieberman campaign either their paid or volunteer staff. I'm not on their mailing lists, nor email lists, nor press release lists. Lastly, I'm not neutral. I have an opinion. It's one that I've expressed many times, and that is that the Lamont campaign is bad for the Democratic party, the Democratic congressional candidates especially and that if the senate race evolves into a three way race, it opens the possibility to a Republican win.

All of my posts have been sourced, and reflect my commentary. I encourage debate about what I post, but sadly there are some here who think its ok to attack the poster rather than what is posted.

MikeCT said...

turfgrrl,
the Lamont campaign is bad for the Democratic party, the Democratic congressional candidates especially

You claim you are concerned that Lamont will distract attention from the Democratic Congressional challengers. If you sincerely believed this, you would focus your own writing on Murphy, Courtney, and Farrell. You would go see them speak and talk to people involved in their campaigns. You would report back on the pros and cons of their messages and strategies. You would track the records of the Republican incumbents and the influence of their donors. You would dig up nuggets of news from non-obvious sources. Given the lack of media attention to their campaigns, you might actually provide a service. When was the last time you did any of this?

That would require effort and research, and it is clearly not your priority. It would also put you in the uncomfortable and vulnerable position of explaining whom you support, rather than whom you loathe. In practice, you have become obsessed with scraping for any silly excuse to slam Lamont. You exploit every opportunity to insult and condescend to others, in a fourth grade playground kind of way. Your behavior is predictable, boring, and useless.

turfgrrl said...

mikeCT -- short term memory loss over there? I suggest you actually read the bulk of my posts before jumping on this one note bandwagon. But why not answer these questions: Is it ok for a purported liberal to make a living off gated residential communities? Is it ok for a purported liberal to socialize with republicans at an exclusive club?

cgg said...

Wait we're not allowed to socialize with Republicans now? I must have missed the memo! And why can't our candidates join clubs?

I'm sorry Turfgrrl but I can't take this Round Hill Stuff seriously. Even when I first saw someone bombard a Lamont volunteer with questions about Round Hill it was hard to keep a straight face. But then the way Lieberman supporters have gone aboutr spreading it was just silly.

I'm not thrilled with Lamont's wealth, nor Lierberman's. But let's be honest here. This campaign is about a weathy man running against an even wealthier one.

nedweenie said...

Well put, ct_husky. I expect alot of CT Dems (myself included) feel the same.

MikeCT said...

Can you respond with anything other than insults, denial, and diversion?

You've written two front page posts in the last three months that touch on Congress - one about a net neutrality vote and one on Shays (that was frankly a distortion). Nothing about Murphy, Courtney, or Farrell. Several trivial posts in that timeframe about Lamont. So no, you are not, in practice, interested in the Congressional challengers.

turfgrrl said...

cgg--So are you saying that you are ok with Lamont being a former member of an exclusive Greenwich club, and that it's fine by you if his company builds digital video systems for gated residential communities?

Do you not find it disingenuous for Lamont to criticize Lieberman when it comes to "doing business" with republicans, when the nature of his corporate life has similar activities?

turfgrrl said...

mikect-- Can't answer the questions can you?

cgg said...

So are you saying that you are ok with Lamont being a former member of an exclusive Greenwich club, and that it's fine by you if his company builds digital video systems for gated residential communities

I'm fine with it. Neither one is even on my radar.

Do you not find it disingenuous for Lamont to criticize Lieberman when it comes to "doing business" with republicans, when the nature of his corporate life has similar activities?

If I did I'd be a giant hypocrite.

Patricia Rice said...

True Blue, Bruce and other lefty’s. You have proven that you don't care about your state or country. You have made it known in this blog that you will put your Party in front of your Country when you admitted that you would support Senator Lieberman ( a person you trash on a daily basis) over any Republican if he wins the primary.

Well, I apparently am a little more principled than either of you and will support Senator Lieberman regardless of his party affiliation because he is the better man for the job. I will never support Millionaire Ned regardless of what happens.

It is your reasoning and party over substance mentality that has allowed the Republicans to control congress and the White House. Nice job boys! The Democratic Party I knew cares more about issues than party. You and the whack’s on the left have strayed so far off course that you have forgotten what the Democratic party ideal’s really are all about.

If you fellows are really what the Democratic party has become I would leave but fortunately, I believe it is you that is out of touch and you and your friends should all join the Green Party where you will feel more at home.

BRubenstein said...

Turfgrrl....according to you no Dem could ever socialize with a Republican...since my parents are Republicans i suppose under your reasoning i couldnt honor them on their birthday's or other important holidays...furthermore in those "gated communities" lay democrats too...and when you "wire them for tv" you are wiring everyone...your logic i find immature and faulty as usual.

I do want to endorse what CtMike says you have a condescending manner and your un-researched posts are at a 4th grade level here and are boring and usleless.

BRubenstein said...

Pat Rice...Thank you for posting that True Blue and I..and other lefties dont care about this country....will you next advocate detention camps for us?

Instead of my leaving the party..i recently was the state party finance chair ( the longest serving in recent memory too)...i intend to fight even harder in the party for progressive values and issues...thank you for giving me the increased ambition to change the Democratic party..i bet Trueblue and the other "lefties" ( commies,leninists,marxists) in here also would thank you for portraying your real democratic principles by McCartyizing us.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

BRubenstein said... "
by McCartyizing us.


There you go again, demonizing that wonderful man......honestly can't you say anything nice?

Patricia Rice said...

Bruce...yes, you and the lefties are royally screwing up the Real Democratic Party while you continue to trash a man that you claim you would support if he wins the primary. Why don't you look up the word hypocrite?

Democrats should be focused beating Jodi Rell. Looks like we are just going to let Moody and Rell slide because we would rather spend time beating up a Senator that YOU will support if he wins the primary. You have got to be kidding me! You should really give some more thought to your statements.

BRubenstein said...

ACR..lmao..i laughed for 15 minutes..your humor continues to be wonderful.

BRubenstein said...

Pat Rice...thank you for your continued questioning of my patriotism on this July 4th...and the patriotism of the other liberals here.....the Commissar of party Loyalty, knowing of your continued disapproval of me and the other "lefties" here, will now automatically re-issue our red party cards without a problem.

And Pat,for the record...i will support Lamont to the end...the end being that i will be in DC to attend the swearing in of him as our next Senator...see you there !!!!

CTAnalyst said...

Turfgrrl, have you ever been committed to a mental hospital?

ct_husky said...

See, now this whole post has seemingly devolved into a pissing contest. To me, this is EXACTLY what is wrong with political discourse today. People are so quick to take one side of what ends up being construed as a binary situation. It's that whole "us v. them" mentality, and its total horsesh....well, you get my point. To me, this whole Lieberman-Lamont race isn't about changing the direction of the Democratic Party, its about taking a stand behind a candidate who's ideals best support your own (which, ironically enough, is how I was always taught democracy is SUPPOSED to work). Personally, I view the current state of the Lamont campaign as exactly that. For once, I get to see people supporting someone who is challenging incumbency and articulating a set of views that have seemingly been stewing in and around this state of ours for quite some time. The fact that this campaign has come so far is, to me, a quite refreshing breath of air into what has become a process awarding incumbency over ideas. That being said, supporting one candidate or the other does nothing to question one's loyalty (ot the party, country, whatever). Rather, it shows that, amazingly enough, the principles of democratic government are still breathing (even if they just might be on life support).

Patricia Rice said...

Bruce....Because you promised to support Senator Lieberman should he win the primary, at the swearing in ceremony make sure you grab an extra helping of that humble pie at the buffet line.

As for me, I stand on principle and would never promise to support somebody that I have been putting down so Senator Lieberman has my support regardless of the out come of the primary or general election.

turfgrrl said...

ctanalyst -- why are you looking for a room mate?

turfgrrl said...

cgg -- that's cool. I appreciate that you answered the questions.

turfgrrl said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
cgg said...

Patricia it sounds like you're saying that primaries are a bad thing. Would you prefer that candidates be chosen by party bosses? If Lieberman is such a great believer in Democracy he should welcome the chance to participate in it.

Lieberman clearly doesn't care what voters in his own party want. That speaks volumes about his "principles", as well the "principles" of any Democrat who signs that petition.

However, if the majority of Democrats actually want him as our Senator than I'm willing to go along. He's still better than a Republican. That's not unreasonable. That's Democracy.

Dingus Khan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
BRubenstein said...

Pat Rice..go ahead and abandon the Dem Party with Joe....good riddance....BTW i dont support Joe...I support Lamont....stop lying to the new folks that come in here.

On this most solemn of patriotic days you have questioned the patriotism of me and the other liberal bloggers....you should be ashamed of yourself and apologize.

Patricia Rice said...

Bruce...You really expect everybody that disagrees with you to issue an apology? Do you often ask people that exercise their 1st amendment rights to apologize? I can see why you are supporting the spoiled Millionaire.

After watching how you and the liberals behave on this blog,If tomorrow morning Senator Lieberman decided not to run, I would vote for the Republican Alan whats his name... and I can't remember the last time I voted for any Republican!

Thats how much I think of Ned LaMont

BRubenstein said...

Pat Rice...no Pat...you are the only one who has questioned the patriotism of the left bloggers and me...so i expect only an apology from you...how dare you do that on this most solemn patriotic day.

CTAnalyst said...

BREAKING: turfgrrl refuses to address questions about mental hospital stay

From the post above, you can see that this is factually correct, but misleading. It illustrates the nature of turfgrrl's posts, which at best are factually correct, and often even that much isn't true.

Her continued posts on this blog further degrade this site.

ct_husky said...

I'm sorry, but what "further degrades" this site are the consistent flame wars that take place in these discussions. I'm not necessarily defending the position taken in the post in question (the points about "gated communities" are, to me, trivial at best), but I will say that the constant poster-bashing, regardless of who the poster is, is absolutely appaling. As amazing as this may sound (judging by some of the discourse I've seen in the past 24 hours alone) it is possible to disagree with someone's position without completely attacking that person. Now, I'm relatively new here - I happened to stumble upon this site while doing research for a current internship - so I don't know the whole history here. What I do know, however, is that y'all who constantly bicker back and forth about who's paid by what group/campaign and so on does nothing to further the contributions this site can make - it just further portrays political discourse today as nothing more than a hyped-up pissing contest.

Chris MC said...

Well said, ct_husky.

Weicker Liker said...

Alan Schlesinger spoke to the Greenwich Time....


Bad sign when the candidate answers his own phone

http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/local/scn-gt-schlesinger4jul05,0,7457634.story?coll=green-news-local-headlines

Genghis Conn said...

ct_husky is absolutely correct.

If you dislike what a poster is saying, I invite you to disagree. But continuing to personally attack turfgrrl (and one another) shows a lack of common human decency--which this site has done its best to erode my faith in.