Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Are Netroots Activists Overfunding Lamont?

The question posed comes not just from me, (I unequivocally say you betcha) but from fstilicho at mydd. As of 09/06/06:
ActBlue records the following donation totals:

Ned Lamont: 331K

vs:

Claire McCaskill: 67K
Jon Tester: 124K
Sherrod Brown: 52K
Harold Ford: 12K (!)
Jim Webb: 180K
Bob Casey: 13K


Which seems to me if you are Democrat, and you are unhappy with the rubber stamp leading Republicans, you may want to focus on races where Democrats are trying to unseat Republicans, you know, in that mathematic sort of way that says you need 51 Senators to claim a majority, chair committees, launch investigations, veto stuff, control the agenda, the floor, etc. etc. So even counting the primary excitement, it seems a little odd, that national activists would spend more money against Joe Lieberman than Rick Santorum. Rick Santorum is an actual Republican who actually votes like a Republican. In fact he is the posterchild Republican that tosses up such gems for Kos to rant about. Such as:
In the now-famous interview, Santorum says:

"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."
Tell me, what kind of person walks around talking about "man on dog" sex? I can confidently say that the thought never enters my mind unbidden. Yet Santorum, in the course of a conversation with a reporter, casually mentions bestiality.--Friday | April 25, 2003, Deep inside Santorum's noggin', Dailykos.com

Or how about this:
Santorum supports capping lawsuits for pain & suffering at $250,000. Yet his wife sued her chiropracter for pain & suffering in the amount of $500,000 (winning $350,000).
Santorum wants to bar the taxpayer-funded National Weather Service from providing its data for free on the web, ostensibly because he feels that government-funded entitites shouldn't compete with private business. But he voted against relieving the requirement for the Department of Defense to buy goods and services from Federal Prison Industries (FPI). So, it is okay for the government to obstruct competition when it involves prison labor; but not okay to give taxpayers what they already paid for, because it might reduce the potential profits of a private enterprise? (Not to mention that there are plenty of small business entrepreneurial uses for NWS data).dkospedia.com

Bob Casey is running against Rick Santorum, yet Casey only merits $13k of donations while millionaire Ned Lamont rakes in the netroots cash.

What will the Kos inspired attack poodles say if Republicans hold onto the majorities in the House and Senate? That somehow chasing after the Joe Lieberman was more important than actually doing something about flipping the Senate back to a Democratic majority? Or will they claim that the evil Rove Republican machine somehow cheated out election victories? The money trail certainly speaks volumes about netroot election priorities.

41 comments:

Jim said...

"What will the Kos inspired attack poodles say if Republicans hold onto the majorities in the House and Senate?"

Gee, you have a rare talent for bringing people around to your point of view. I can see why Joe is so popular when he has smart, gracious people like you pressing his case.

Anonymous said...

Turrf... you know why Casey isn;t getting Kos dough....it's because on most issues Casey is to the RIGHT of Joe Lieberman

The Architect said...

As soon as I read the title and first line of this post, I knew it was by Turfgrrl.

Stratford Dem said...

I think people tend to hate a traitor more than the enemy. Many Democrats feel Joe betrayed them, so they feel really venemous hate.

I, however, I am voting for him.

Bobby McGee said...

They are overfunding Lamont. But, just because it shouldn't be the highest priority, doesn't mean that defeating Joe isn't a worthwhile venture.

MikeCT said...

turf,
For all your attacks on Lamont and his supporters and your complaints about his campaign "distracting" from Congressional races, you have yet to write a single front page diary about any of the Democratic Congressional challengers in Connecticut. Your actual record "speaks volumes" about your "election priorities." Your de facto target is not Republicans. It's progressive Democrats. Put up or shut up.

Anonymous said...

keep pumping all that money into Lamont , guys.....

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=3d622b45-9477-4189-bdfe-de7605bd2f4e

Lieberman over 50 in a three way

Anonymous said...

In Connecticut's U.S. Senate race, a new SurveyUSA poll shows Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) soundly defeating Ned Lamont (D) and Alan Schlesinger (R). Lieberman gets 51%, Lamont 38% with Schlesinger trailing at just 7%.

Key finding: 83% of the Democrats who voted for Lieberman in the Democratic Primary, which Lamont won by 4 points, stick with Lieberman as an Independent in the General Election.

Other key finding: 57% of those who prefer Lamont say they are voting "against" another candidate. 60% of those who vote Lieberman say they are voting "for" Lieberman.

Anonymous said...

Partys over Ned. Hah.

Anonymous said...

Hey MikeCT- Pipe down. Your acting like the school yard bully.

Anonymous said...

Another election cycle is upon us, and once again all of you "progressive" Democrats (as well as the media) are underestimating Bush, Rove & Republicans. Given how unpopular the war is and Bush's low approval rating, this election should be a slam dunk. Instead, the "progressives" are making it a horse race. I think you have hit your high water mark. The Congress will remain in Republican control, although Democrats will make significant gains especially in the Senate. Just promise me that you will keep focusing your time on Lamont, because that is music to my Republican ears!

leaveonlyfootprints said...

I think this is a false choice.

I donated to Ned Lamont. I live in Connecticut. I live in Rosa DeLauro's district - not exactly a close race.

I am also a college student. I don't have a lot of money to give, but I gave $25 to Lamont. That is not $25 I would have given to anyone else for the simple reason that I don't have enough disposable income to donate to somebody who does not represent me directly (e.g., MT-Sen or other CDs in CT).

As much as I am pulling for Farrell, Murphy, McCaskill, Tester - indeed, Dems all over the country, they would not have gotten the money I gave to Lamont.

Anonymous said...

If you want an example of just how stupid some people can be, please read this quote that is posted on MLN.

"Sen. Joe Lieberman (?-Conn.) increasingly has been relying on Washington, D.C., lobbyists — Republicans as well as Democrats — to help him hang on to his seat.

"GOP lobbyists clearly are eager to help him."

"Take, for example, an invitation to an upcoming Lieberman fundraiser circulated by Ruth Ravitz Smith, a GOP lobbyist at Brown Rudnick."

Here is what's so funny about this post and why the Lieberman haters on MLN are such idiots.

First, Lamont got his start and has been helped throughout his campaign by a Republican lobbyist named Tom D'Amore. He is also former Republican Party Chairman for crying out loud.

Second, the Brown, Rudnick fundraiser is a GOP group. Really? That must be news to the folks who run their CT shop like Tom Ritter, former Democratic Speaker of the House.

It's hard to be that stupid, but this post on MLN proves it can be done.

Bravo! (Applause/ Standing O.)

Anonymous said...

This new poll is bad for Ned, WSJ poll was great, rasmussen and ARG are good, last Q-Poll bad, what does that equal?

I have no idea!!

But wouldn't put too much stock in a single one, we saw how off they were in the primary so i think way to soon for either side to gloat about anything.

TrueBlueCT said...

Another pitiful diary Turfgirl. You ever going to disclose to your readers the fact that you are a registered Republican? If Genghis wants to balance out the front-page posters, he should stick to finding just one Democrat. Add one in, and that gives us two Republicans, (DG and TG, one moderate ex-Green, and what would be CCG and another Democrat.)

Substantively, the Netroots could be giving much more money to Lamont than we are. Most of us have realized that Ned can afford to self-finance, so we have made small gestures of support, ($10-$100 sized contributions), but we haven't gone to the mat because we don't have to.

And the idea that the extent of small-dollar giving is somehow a zero sum game is simply fallacious.

And yes, even if the Republicans pull off a hail-mary down the stretch, the left-wing blogosphere will still agree that outing Joe Lieberman as the selfish, Republican-kissing, "it's all about me", politician that he is, -- well, it was certainly a worthwhile accomplishment.

Now tell me again why Republicans love Joe Lieberman over the Greenwich millionaire businessman who is obviously to the right of Lieberman on fiscal matters? You all are desperate, and Lieberman is a tool.

P.S. I have given less than 20% of my political $$$ to Lamont.

Chris MC said...

TB -

You appear to have overlooked Bobby McGee (D-CTLP, Blogosphere)

Anonymous said...

Wow! 331k! If that gets you all worked up, why don't you throw a fit over the billion dollars that Hillary and Spitzer have raised to run against absolutely no one? Oh, because you wouldn't get to take a shot at Lamont then? Hack.

Also, good job bringing Casey up. Do you think the reason why he isn't getting money from the netroots is because he and the net roots don't actually agree on many important issues? And because he was the pick of the party insiders that have led us to several horrid elections in a row? But if you thought that, you wouldn't be able to make your bass ackward point...

Also, where on earth do you get the idea that political contributions are a zero sum game. You seem to have assumed, without evidence, that people who donated to Lamont, would have been excited enough to donate that money to another candidate if Lamont did not exist. Why?

What will the Kos inspired attack poodles say if Republicans hold onto the majorities in the House and Senate?

That we wish Joe had respect the democratic primary results and hadn't run a GOP GOTV campaign that sunk three of our best hopes of taking Republican seats in the house. Hack.

TrueBlueCT said...

Chris Mc-

I certainly did. Anyway, Bobby and CCG make two Democrats. And Turfgirl and Disgruntled make two Republicans. Can we call off the search for another 'winger?

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:18 - You seem to have a bit of a reading comprehension problem. Ruth Ravitz Smith is a GOP lobbyist at Brown Rudnick as the quote says. The quote does not say that Brown Rudnick is a GOP group. You saying that it did say that does not actually make what they said untrue. I recommend sticking to reading things on your grade level.

Also, Tom T'A left the Republicans with Weiker like a million years ago. Calling him a republican lobbyist is like calling my grandfater alive; it may help make your point, but that doesn't make it true.

turfgrrl said...

funny how in the netroots liberal world Rick Santorum is a better choice than Bob Casey. Who'd a thunk it ...

TrueBlueCT said...

Another stupid comment.

The netroots knows Casey is winning. And we know Santorum is all-but-doomed. Plus Casey has the advantages of traditional funding.

If this race were to tighten up, and if he really needed a $100 from me for last minute ads, hey, no problem. (I gave to Salazar, and Herseth two Dem conservatives, btw.)

So please don't challenge my Democratic loyalties Turfgrrl. Or if you do, save us the bullsh*t strawman arguments.

turfgrrl said...

truebluect -- seems like you're the one feeling challenged ... it does seem you think you speak for the netroots though, mighty thoughtful of you.

ProgCT said...

Not funding him enough. Joe Lieberman and his murderous warmongering need to go. He is the go to Fox News Democrat. The person who gives all Democrats a bad name. The one who George Bush and Karl Rove go to when they need a Democrat to advocate their bloodthirsty murderous policies. If Democrats didnt pick up another Senate seat it would be good as long as Joe the Warmonger was removed from the Senate. It will increase our chances in all future races across the country to remove the biggest warmonger in the Senate from office.

No Connecticut Democrat should donate a dollar to any race outside of the state until they've given their max to Lamont.

Joe needs to go and Joe's warmongering supporters need to go to Iraq immediately.

Anonymous said...

turfgrrl said...

funny how in the netroots liberal world Rick Santorum is a better choice than Bob Casey. Who'd a thunk it ...


Funny how no one said anything resembling that. Don't let that stop you though... Hack.

Anonymous said...

Turfgrrl -

Being snarky about your critics without actually addressing their substantive criticisms makes it seem like you can't address them. Like you were a hack, or something.

cgg said...

This post might have made more sense pre-primary. Now it's to late to turn back.

Chris MC said...

TB -
I'd actually be OK with a broader range of flavors. An old-line Connecticut GOP'er would be good. And a bona fide firebreathin' Cheney Republican we don't have.

And I know you delight in attempting (unsuccessfully, incidentally) to terrorize turfgrrl, but her party registration is actually irrelevant. Her job is to be a moderate - she can be a U, D, R, it doesn't really matter a bit. And she tries to fill that role.

She has defended Lieberman, which took more than an average amount of guts and deftness at the keyboard in the primary phase considering that he and the gang that couldn't shoot straight were providing absolutely nothing to work with. It was tough duty, but she was game, and a lot of us appreciate it.

But really we don't have an old-line Truman-Kennedy-Clinton-DLCer on board to argue that point of view with personal conviction, and could really use that perspective, IMO.

Not that advocacy is a bad thing (having kind of advocated for a candidate), but an array of reasonably informed and sober perspectives in a running conversation is what I like about this project....

TrueBlueCT said...

Yeah Chris Mc--
And you've never gone on the record about your support for Loserman. (Though you did put your first selectman in a heck of a position when you invited Joe to march with Newtown Democrats.)

Honest disclosure is something I expect from everyone. Sorry.

You and Turfgirl go well together, btw.

Chris MC said...

Oh yeah, me and him we're laughing about that earlier today. What a thing that was! But as usual we stick together and everything worked out fine. You even behaved yourself while you were here, which we counted as a blessing, believe me. [chuckling]

Next year might be the first time a US Senator (if he wins) shows up to campaign against a First Selectman though, LOL.

Honest disclosure is something you expect from everyone? LMAO. You fool.

But thank you very much for putting me in turfgrrl's company. As your last remark demonstrates (not that anybody needs it impressed upon them further), she's way, way out of your league.

TrueBlueCT said...

Honest disclosure is something you expect from everyone? LMAO. You fool. --So says Chris Mc.

No Chris, it's not foolish to expect people to be honest about where they're coming from. And why are you too embarassed to be an overt Lieberman supporter? Is it that you pretended to be on the Dean team?

Again, you and turfgirl stick to your hidden agendas, despite your utter transparency.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if I could distract the two of you from throwing sand at eath other in the sandbox to point out that this post from turfgrrl is built entirely on the false assumption that campaign donations are a zero sum game and that if the net roots didn't push Lamont, somehow Casey would have more money... And she can't defend that assumption.

Anyone?

Anonymous said...

Casey's commitment to controlling women's bodies and eliminating reproductive choice might have something to do with his limited Democratic support. He's a pathetic embarrassment.

Paul Vance said...

Now this is an interesting thread (although getting a little too physical!) I have wondered how netroots (and the party as a whole) would react to Casey, especially since his family has a long history of pro-life activism (for those who did not know, Casey v. Planned Parenthood is a seminal case that is studied in most law schools as it relates to Roe v. Wade and the abortion issue.)

Casey is a good candidate and certainly better than Rick Santorum (Mr. Dog on Man, lol)-- however I found him to be a bit stiff when I met him. (I expected him to be more of a natural politician, an more affable Irish guy from Scranton, PA).

I don't think I agree with turf's comparing the two races, but I am surprised that netroots has not jumped on the Casey race, especially when considering Santorum makes no secret of his support of the Bush's administration policies. That being said, maybe I need to send a check to Casey.

Genghis Conn said...

Casey is popular because of his father, longtime governor Robert Casey.

As for why the netroots isn't more irritated by him... PA is a state where winning is more important than ideology. Must be nice.

Paul Vance said...

Gov. Casey had Carville and Begala (as novices) working on his campaign. Very interesting.

Anonymous said...

One of the reasons that the netroots didn't get all over Casey's campaign (in addition to the substantive issues mentioned above) is that, until very recently, Casey had a commanding lead over the national embarrassment that is Senator Man-On-Dog - the race wasn't a priority because it wasn't close.

Of course, that doesn't fit into Turfgrrl's worldview of attacking Lamont all the time, so it wasn't mentioned...

Anonymous said...

GC - the net roots weren't more irritated by Casey also because they had no real alternative. The gentleman running aginst Casey in the Democratic primary was not a good candidate - couldn't raise money or generate any excitement. When faced with no choice...

turfgrrl said...

One of the interesting things to come out of this thread is the insistence that campaign contributions is not an either or proposition. Yet on the flip side, ideological adherence is an either or proposition. I think when you have some person in Iowa, or I should say, non-competetive district, looking to contribute dollars to a campaign in order to help the ideological cause; winning a race, as in picking up a seat should be paramount. The other surprising thing was to see how CT based contributors aligned themselves as netroots, when in-fact they are actual voters in the race! It sort of gets back to whether the online community bonds that one forms eventually become stronger than local community bonds.

Paul Vance said...

Interesting point Turfgirl.

anonymous said...

I find it interesting that Turfgirl and Genghis Con paint LIeberman as a victim of "ideology". He's where he is because of his brain dead support for George Bush's idiotic war. He's decided the only way to save his sorry skin is to lie about that support. Even looking past the war, his self-agrandizing "bipartisanship" consists mostly of lending his name and the reputation Al Gore gave him to people like Lynne Cheney and Sean Hannity.

BTW, to all you Lieberman supporters: Sixty people were found in Bagdad today, bound hand and foot and shot dead after having been tortured. Another couple of dozen were killed by carbombs. And two more American soldiers killed in Iraq while Afghsnistan falls further under the control of the Taliban, and Pakistan has essentially granted a safe haven to Osama, but we can't do anything about that because the bulk of our military is stuck in the Bush-Lieberman quagmire.

What "ideology" is it that considers such things inconsequential? Where are Lieberman's much touted "values"? is he waiting for something important like reports of blowjobs? How 'bout his bipartisan "leadership"? Is he to busy ditching votes to actually propose a solution beyond "stay the course"? If nothing else, Lamont has created a situation where scummy, delusional Joe can't respond to slaughter by grinning his Pat Robertson grin and talking about how many cell phones are in use in Iraq.

Anonymous said...

I'm really happy that you are interested in whether or not campaign contributions are a zero sum game now.

I guess its too much to ask for you to think about it before you use it as a hammer to drive home post number 7,564,392 about how people are stupid for supporting Lamont.