Connecticut Politics and Elections: Coverage, Analysis, Maps and Commentary
Two words "THEY LOST"
A lot of rationalizations and blame shifting, frankly. I was a Ned supporter, solid as a rock, but I'd vote for a monkey if it were running against Joe Lieberman. Here's what I think:1. At base, Ned Lamont was a bad candidate. When he spoke, he sounded like he was reading bullet points. And not just in the debates, although it was worse then. He always sounded that way.I saw snippets of lots of debates from around the country on CSPAN and Lamont easily made the worst presentation of anyone in either party. He repeatedly passed on opportunities to respond to his opponents, and he almost never sounded natural.I'm not blaming him; after all he was a neophyte learning as he went along. But I just don't think he was a good product, and product is what people like. 2. He went on vacation after the primary. I agree with the writer saying it was time to step on Lieberman's throat.Beyond that, the campaign itself seemed to go on vacation for two-three weeks. He was invisible. During this time Lieberman dominated the airwaves with his "I'm sick of partisanship" BS. And it was BS that struck a chord, Lieberman's campaign was near perfect when people were deciding, and Lamont wasn't anywhere to be seen. He never got the momentum back.3. He never responded adequately to the Lieberman ad attacking him for laying people off and paying himself big bucks. He never seemed to grasp how devastating that was. It raised questions about him as an unknown entity and it played the populist card.I know what the response is, because I read it in some paper one day. But whenever I told it to people, it was the first time they'd heard it. 4. The anti-war candidate's position on Iraq was incomprehensible.I never figured it out and I'm pretty sure I pay more attention than the general public. Maybe this DNC blabber didn't make a difference where Democrats ran against defenders of the Bush approach, but Lieberman did his "I'm for getting the troops out, too" about-face and Ned had no credible alternative. I honestly don't know what Ned's position on the war was. It was something about "phased redeployment". What the hell does that mean? He should have just said "Look, we should get out tomorrow. If Iraq is going to fall into civil war it's going to do it whenever we leave, now or in ten years. In the meantime if we leave the anti-US insurgents will lose their reason to exist."5. Lieberman's campaign was good. His poll numbers never went down. After the primary I thought Ned could go up and Lieberman could only drop -- but he didn't.Lieberman's promise to caucus with the Democrats took away any chance Ned had to pick up points from anti-Bush Dems who didn't like Ned being aligned with the "activist/ progressive" part of the party, but who would have been uncomfortable sending a Republican vote to the Senate. And Republicans were too savvy to waste a vote on Schlesinger/Gold.
Sounds real democratic!Bysiewicz wants a 'sore loser law' DANBURY -- One week after the election, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz repeated her call for a "sore loser law" that would essentially prevent a politician that loses a primary from being on the ballot again in the general election. Just before speaking to students at Western Connecticut State University today, Bysiewicz said it would be part of her legislative package in 2007. If such a law had it been in effect this year, it would have stopped U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman from running as an independent after he lost the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont. This proposal would not affect write-in candidates, Bysiewicz said, such as Waterbury Mayor Mike Jarjura, who was re-elected as a write-in candidate in 2005 after first losing the Democratic primary. -- From staff writer Fred Lucas
G-Bury what paper is that article from? I'd like to write a post about it.
Danbury New Times
I would not visit "Daily KOS" again if you paid me- I have never seen so much senseless & hatefull drivel in one spot in my entire life.
Post a Comment