My evidence for this?
The (Republican) White House had the time and inclination to issue a press release blasting Connecticut Democrats for rejecting Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary:
he White House accused the Democratic Party on Wednesday of catering to the extreme left after Connecticut voters defeated Sen. Joe Lieberman in a primary election over his support of the Iraq war.
...
"I think instead it's a defining moment for the Democratic Party whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party, they're going to come after you," [Tony Snow] said.
Forget for a second the absurdity of the quoted line (national leaders of the Democratic Party didn't "come after" Senator Lieberman until he declared his willingness to disregard the will of Connecticut Democrats and the "extreme left" seems to agree with 60% of America on the defining issue of the campaign). I'm just glad that they managed to get everything done above "comment on the Connecticut primary" on the old To-Do list...
Update: From Ken Krayeske in the comments:
Today's White House Press Briefing:
One of the interesting things that happened in this Connecticut race, by the way, was there appeared to be some buyer's remorse as election day approached. Maybe the polls were rigged; maybe the polls were bad. But at least the lead that Mr. Lamont had went from 13 points to six to four on election day. That indicates that even in a fairly liberal state like Connecticut, where this is the one issue, where you had a well-financed candidate who had more money than the incumbent, that you still had a 50-50 split more or less within the Democratic Party on this issue.
Ken hits both points right on target:
1. Tony Snow is either claiming that the drop in Lamont's support in the Q-Poll from 13 to 6 in a week represents buyer's remorse or that the Q-Poll is rigged. Either view is utterly unsupported by evidence (the Q-Poll is rigged? Projection much? Also, rarely will campaigns rig a poll so that it appears that they lost half their support in a week. Its absurd on its face.). The evidence supports the proposition that the 13 point poll is an outlier. The 6 point poll is more reflective of what the Lamont campaign's internals showed (no link, it was told to me verbally).
2. While Lamont was well-financed for a challenger of an 18 year incumbent in a primary, to say that he had more money than Lieberman is laughable. As of about a week before the primary (final numbers are not yet available), Lieberman had out raised Lamont by a factor of 2-1. By Tony Snow's standards, I have more money than Bill Gates. If he says it from the podium, it must be true.
12 comments:
This is worth a wtf.
Tony Snow in today's White House Press Briefing, and the last graf is the one worth reading:
MR. SNOW: I don't think so. I mean, if you take a look at the midterms, again, every candidate is going to tell you that his or her campaign is a local campaign, and quite often local issues are going to condition them.
There has been some attempt on the part, again -- a lot of Democratic leadership getting involved in this Connecticut race, trying to nationalize around one issue. That is obviously a key issue; but, on the other hand, everybody has known all along that that's a key issue. The President's view has always been that good policy is good politics. We are sticking with the positions we have taken. We think that they're the right positions to take.
One of the interesting things that happened in this Connecticut race, by the way, was there appeared to be some buyer's remorse as election day approached. Maybe the polls were rigged; maybe the polls were bad. But at least the lead that Mr. Lamont had went from 13 points to six to four on election day. That indicates that even in a fairly liberal state like Connecticut, where this is the one issue, where you had a well-financed candidate who had more money than the incumbent, that you still had a 50-50 split more or less within the Democratic Party on this issue.
Two things:
A) he's claiming that the Quinnipiac polls are rigged. This coming from someone whose boss has stolen two elections from the American people.
B) he's lying through his teeth - a well-financed candidate who had more money than the incumbent? Ned had a little under $4 million. Joe had $10 million. Do these people ever stop lying?
Sen. Dodd had the best analysis of last night's election. He basically said it wasn't about Joe or Ned, but about the people they represent and what they want. We don't want no Joe no mo.
I see no effort on the part of folks who ought to be jubilant to fill in your favorite empty suit
CBS exit polls say late deciders broke big for Lieberman...too bad the surfer left him in such a big hole it wasnt enough
they are all at the Round Hill Club trying to get Ned's lapsed membership
Gabe-
Regarding your point #2:
Tony Snow said Lamont is well-financed. Absolutely. Nobody will deny that. He raised an unbelievable amount of money, especially given his position taking on an incumbent.
Next, he said "who had more money than the incumbent." This is true. Lamont has about 300 million dollars, far more than Lieberman. Snow never said that Lamont raised more and you are attacking something that he never said.
I will admit that Tony Snow was rather vague. But he was not wrong. You are wrong to oppugn him from something he never said, and you are looking for things to criticize to the point where you need to make things up to get your message across. Snow didn't even insinuate that Lamont raised more that Lieberman; that would be an incorrect reading of his statement.
Also, I understand that your comment about Bill Gates was meant to be hyperbole, but it makes you look like a fool. You cite the ratio 2:1, then use it to compare yourself to Bill Gates, who has 60 billion dollars. Do you have 30 billion dollar? You example is completely inane and reflect poorly on you as a writer, blogger, and analyst.
Wolcott Boy - As I stated above, there is evidence that the 13 point poll is an outlier. There is no evidence that something was fishy with the poll. Doesn't stop Tony Snow though.
Snow didn't even insinuate that Lamont raised more that Lieberman; that would be an incorrect reading of his statement.
where you had a well-financed candidate who had more money than the incumbent
Emphasis mine. So your argument was that he was actually talking about the T-Bills that Lamont owned when he used those words in the same sentence?
I understand that your comment about Bill Gates was meant to be hyperbole
Well, clearly not.
The inanity of your comment doesn't reflect well on you...
i agree completely with sean above. gabe did you even read his post? wtf are you talking about? t-bills? what? you are either a complete idiot (sorry but true) or you misread his post. he is dead on. you are coming across as an idiot (i'm not saying you are one...just that is the image that is coming across).
I am a liberal and I am very disappointed with Gabe and I actually agree with Sean. Gabe, you post did make you look like an idiot. You were uninformed, ignorant, and I am sorry that I associate myself in the same party as you. I even voted for Lamont, but if you are a typical supporter, I will have to change my mind because I don't want to be associated with such morons.
I agree with the two anonymous comments above. Gabe is not very smart and it shows sometimes in his blog posts.
Thanks Guys!
Post a Comment