How Did We Get Here? Part 3

Third in the series.
Jump to Part one; Jump to Part two

May
June
July
August

May

May 20th, 2006

Alan Schlesinger is nominated at the GOP convention, as Paul Streitz can't manage the votes to force a primary.

May 24, 2006

Ned Lamont's blog gets underway. Lamont issues a call for debates. The Lieberman campaign's response is acerbic. Meanwhile, Lieberman has begun attacking Lamont for his personal wealth.

May 25th, 2006

Lamont challenges Lieberman to a spending cap for the campaign, the Courant reports. Lieberman demurs.

May 29th, 2006

Lieberman is spotted marching with Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-5th CD) in a Waterbury parade.

June 4th, 2006

Lieberman attacks Lamont's wealth through a television advertisement.

June

June 8th, 2006

Quinnipiac shows Lamont closing in. He trails Lieberman 55%-40% among likely primary voters.

June 12, 2006

A Lamont ad calls on Lieberman to back the primary winner.

June 13, 2006

Former state party chair John Droney advises Lieberman to run as an independent. He has harsh words for Lamont supporters. Rumors continue to circulate about Lieberman leaving the party.

The AFT endorses Lamont.

June 14, 2006

The CEA endorses Lamont. The two teachers' unions are the first major unions to support the challenger.

A Rasmussen poll shows Lamont only six points behind Lieberman. Lieberman leads 46%-40%.

June 16th, 2006

Lieberman drags out an updated version of the infamous Bear Ad from 1988. In it, Lamont is portrayed as a high-voiced, pink-shirted bear cub doing what the Weicker bear tells him. It's a terrible ad, and receives a lot of criticism.

The Lieberman campaign, saying “We look forward to seeing the Greenwich Multi-Millionaire take a break from his attack politics to address some real issues,” accepts

Lamont's challenge to debate. The debate will be on July 6th.

June 17th, 2006

Lieberman refers to the campaign against him as a jihad in an interview with David

Broder.

June 19th, 2006

Lieberman vows to remain in the primary.

George Jepsen endorses Lamont.

June 20th, 2006

Lieberman says Lamont would be too polarizing if elected.

SurveyUSA shows Lieberman's approval at 46% among Connecticut Democrats.

June 21st, 2006

Lieberman announces plans tovote against resolutions calling for troop withdrawals.

Lamont expresses confusing support for both resolutions.

June 22nd, 2006

Lieberman runs ads claiming credit for saving the sub base.

Ann Coulter encourages Lieberman to become a Republican.

June 23rd, 2006

Lieberman's campaign accuses Lamont of flip-flopping on Iraq.

June 25th, 2006

Dick Morris predicts Lieberman will lose.

June 26th, 2006

Paul Bass attacks Lieberman for using some of his material out of context.

Lieberman, in response to a new ad which portrays Joe Lieberman's words coming out of George Bush's mouth, "attacks ad-man Bill Hillsman.

June 27th, 2006

The AFL-CIO of Connecticut endorses Lieberman.

June 30th, 2006

The Courant reports that Lieberman's troubles are making his Senate colleagues uncomfortable.

July>

July 2nd, 2006

Lieberman is booed at a Bridgeport parade.

July 3rd, 2006

Joe Lieberman, at a press conference in front of the state Capitol, announces that he will begin circulating petitions for an independent run in November. He will need to collect 7,500 by August 9th.

July 4th, 2006

The "Kiss Float" makes its first appearance in the Boom Box Parade in Willimantic.

July 5th, 2006

Sen. Hillary Clinton says that Lieberman is "on his own" if he loses in August.

July 6th, 2006

The Courant reports that several of Lieberman's Senate colleagues, including Biden, salazar and Boxer, will be campaigning for him.

The one and only debate between the candidates is seen nationwide on

MSNBC and C-SPAN. Lamont holds his own against Lieberman's withering attacks. The general consensus is that Lamont looked unsteady at first, but gradually improved. Lieberman, on the other hand, looked either angry or determined, depending on who you asked.

July 9th, 2006

An out-of-control car runs into a crowd at SailFest in New London, injuring a Lamont staffer but missing Lamont himself.

Lieberman releases an ad which contains a fake Ned Lamont bumper sticker.

July 10th, 2006

Lieberman's new independent party, should it be necessary, will be called Connecticut for Lieberman.

July 11th, 2006

State Rep. Diana Urban (R) enters the race as an anti-war independent.

July 12th, 2006

Gambling problems begin to dog Alan Schlesinger, as Gov. Rell and state GOP chairman George Gallo call for him to withdraw. He stays in the race.

July 14th, 2006

Gallo suggests that Jack Orchulli could replace Schlesinger on the ticket.

July 15th, 2006

Lamont reports $1.9 million raised with $276,976 on hand for the 2nd Quarter, while Lieberman reports $1.3 million raised with $4.3 million on hand. Lamont contributed $1.1 million of his own money to the campaign during the quarter.

July 17th, 2006

Norwalk's DTC passes a resolution demanding Lieberman support whoever wins the primary.

July 19th, 2006

Lamont says he will match contributions made online to his campaign.

A group of pro-Israel Democrats expresses support for Lieberman.

July 20th, 2006

A Quinnipiac Poll shows Lamont ahead of Lieberman 51% to 47%.

July 22nd, 2006

A Rasmussen poll shows Lamont ahead 51% to 41%.

July 24th, 2006

Nancy Johnson has kind words for Lieberman, and harsh words for Alan Schlesinger, who continues to remain in the race.

Bill Clinton comes to Waterbury to stump for Lieberman. Clinton himself is a hit, but his appearance doesn't seem to help Lieberman much.

A much reported incident takes place between bloggers Spazeboy and Jane Hamsher and Lieberman campaign staff, who refuse to let them into the event.

July 26th, 2006

Willington's DTC asks Lieberman to drop his independent bid should he lose the primary.

July 27th, 2006

Lieberman announces that he'll be campaigning by bus all across Connecticut. He will call the bus tour "Joe's Tomorrow Tour." The tour is cloaked in secrecy--with schedules not available until less than 24 hours before some stops, and is plagued by low attendance and confusion. Worse, the "Kiss Float" follows Lieberman's bus wherever it goes. The tour is largely regarded as a failure.

July 28th, 2006

Lieberman counters the infamous "kiss" button (which shows George W. Bush planting one on Lieberman at the 2005 State of the Union) with The Hug. Uh.

July 29th, 2006

Lamont is endorsed by the New York Times. The Courant endorses Lieberman.

July 31st, 2006

According to the Lamont campaign blog, Lieberman had agreed to debate Lamont again, but then backed out.


August

August 1st, 2006

Lamont appears on the Colbert Report.

Reports abound on the low attendance of Lieberman's bus tour.

August 2nd, 2006

Blogger Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake posts a picture of Lieberman in blackface, then quickly takes it down. The Lieberman campaign reacts with outrage.

It is learned that absentee ballots sent overseas weren't sent on time, which could delay the

results of the primary for weeks.

August 3rd, 2006

A Quinnipiac poll shows Lamont leading Lieberman 54%-41%, his largest lead of the campaign.

Lieberman staffers provoke a scuffle at a Lamont event in Meriden.

August 5th, 2006

A Day/J-I poll shows Lamont leading Lieberman 53%-43%.

August 6th, 2006

Lieberman makes a closing argument for the primary in East Haven.

August 7th 2006

Quinnipiac shows Lieberman catching up, but Lamont is still ahead 51%-45%.

August 8th, 2006

Primary Day! The Lieberman website crashes, and stays down for the entire day. Theories abound as to why this happened, and some suggest that the Lieberman campaign is faking the whole thing.

In the end, it doesn't matter. Lamont wins, 52%-48%. In his concession speech on August 8th, Lieberman vows to continue the fight as an independent. The race for November begins.

Joe's Farewell Address

Alternate universe time - Pretend today's speech was accurate. This is how it could have looked:

I am honored to be joined by my friend Max Cleland, a true American hero, to talk to you about the truth and consequences of this campaign.

In two days Connecticut Democrats will be going to the polls to choose their candidate for U.S. Senate. This evening I want to make my closing argument for your support.

Throughout the last several months, I have done my best to highlight obfuscate what's at stake in this race. I've talked about all misrepresented the work I should have done to protect and create jobs, to lower the cost of health care, to improve our schools, to clean up our environment, and fight for social justice and studiously avoided any mention of Iraq. And about the clear differences between my experience and my opponent's, and who can best deliver for Connecticut and for our future.

Sadly, my opponent I has have done his my best to distort my opponentÂ’s record, spending at least $4 $10 million of his own corporate lobbyist money to mislead people into thinking that I he am is someone I he am is not. Not unlike Nothing about this race is remotely similar to what happened to Max Cleland four years ago, but my staff made me work his name into this speech at least five times.

The more I have talked to avoided voters in these closing days, the more I am concerned they have been shortchanged in this campaign. Instead of hearing an honest debate about the issues that really matter to people, they have been overwhelmed with bogus charges about my opponentÂ’s Democratic credentials. Somewhat confusingly, I have also simultaneously implied that my opponent is both a left-wing lunatic and a closet Republican. Instead of having an honest discussion about your future, we're getting my campaign has given you negative politics at its worst.

You deserve better than that. You deserve the truth. I have always almost never leveled with you, and I'm not going to stop start now. When you go into the voting booth on Tuesday, I want you to know the facts and have a fair chance to make an honest choice about what's best for your family, our state, and our future be a low-information voter.

Let's start with the biggest lie fair criticism being told about me by the other side – the false accurate charge that I am support George Bush's failed and unpopular policies far too often for my constituents best friend and enabler. As Max's friends in Georgia would say, that is a load of hogwash. Does everyone remember that Max Cleland is on this stage with me?

If you stretch the meaning of the phrase "run against"” so far as to render it meaningless, I am the only Democrat in America to run against George Bush in a national election twice. I Al Gore even beat him and Dick Cheney once, if all the votes had been counted.

I campaigned against George Bush because I believe that his agenda was wrong for our country and our future I want to be President. And that's the truth.

In the Senate, I have acted on that conviction time and time again, standing against the President on most every big domestic issue occasionally and only when it was very popular to do so. I did so because I believe that his policies were damaging to our state and country approval ratings. And that's the truth.

- I opposed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy that hurt the middle class.
- I opposed the Bush ban on stem cell research.
- Even though I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, I opposed the Bush constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
- Once I helped ensure its passage by voting for cloture, I opposed the Bush bankruptcy bill.
- Although I have been vocal in undermining Affirmative Action, I believe that it should be undermined legislatively, so I opposed the President's efforts to undermine affirmative action in the courts.
- I opposed his unilateral decision to pull out of the Kyoto global warming pact and the International Criminal Court.
- Aside from being the only New England Democrat to support his Energy company-written energy bill, I opposed his ongoing assault on the environment. In fact, I led the fight against his plans to drill in the Arctic Refuge and to weaken standards for power plant emissions.
- And contrary to the lies of my opponents As soon as it was clear that the plan had already been defeated by my brave Democratic colleagues, I stopped intimating that I was willing to deal on the most successful social program in our nation'’s history and time after time I stood with my fellow Democrats to oppose George Bush's plan to privatize Social Security.

Now with all that said, I will never hesitate to work across party lines when whether it helps me get something done for the people of Connecticut or not.

Like saving the Groton sub base with Governor Rell and the entire Connecticut Congressional delegation. Like dramatically increasing transportation funding for Connecticut, cleaning up Long Island Sound, and targeting more money to public schools in our cities. Or like passing the 9/11 Commission bill with John McCain over the opposition of President Bush.

That's something that separates me from my opponent - I don't hate Republicans liberals and people who dare to question me. I know that some times the best way to get things done in the Senate for my is to screw my constituents is through bipartisan cooperation.

That doesn't makes me a bad Democrat. It makes me a better Senator So does promising to ignore the wishes of the Democratic Party primary voters and to mount an independent bid to retain my birthright, my Senate seat.

But don't take my word for it. Ask the state AFL-CIO, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, the Human Rights Campaign, and more than a dozen other leading progressive organizations that are standing by me in this primary, because I have stood by them in the Senate. Please do not ask the National Organization of Women, Connecticut'’s two teacher unions, the Connecticut Education Association and the Connecticut Federation of Teachers, or Carolyn Treiss, head of NARAL-CT and Susan Yolen, head of Planned Parenthood-CT, both of whom voted for my opponent at the Democratic Convention.

Or ask Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Barbara Boxer, John Lewis, State Treasurer Denise Nappier, Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez, state AFL-CIO President John Olsen, and dozens of other national and state Democratic leaders who have endorsed me, including many who opposed the war in Iraq. Please do not ask Bill or Hillary Clinton after August 8 if I lose, both have promised to support the winner of the primary in the general election.

Do you really think all these people would be strongly supporting me if they thought even for a minute that I was too close to George Bush not the incumbent?

On Iraq, as you know, I supported the resolution giving the President the authority to use force to take out Saddam Hussein, as did most Senate Democrats. In the face of all available evidence, I still believe that was right.

What I don't think is right, as I have said over and over again, are many of the Bush Administration's decisions regarding the execution of the war. The fact is, I have, openly and clearly as quietly and as politely as possible, disagreed with and criticized the President for, among other things:

- not winning the support of our allies in the run-up to the war;
- not having a plan to win the peace;
- not putting enough troops on the ground;
- putting an American in charge of the Iraqi oil supply.

And I said that if I were President, I would ask Secretary Rumsfeld to resign. I first said that in October 2003.

I know as well as anyone we have made a lot of mistakes in Iraq and we have suffered more casualties than we should have. Don't think for a minute I do not grieve for every casualty of this war.

In fact, as someone who voted for the war, I feel a heavy responsibility to try to end it as quickly and successfully as possible.

I have been to the front lines four times. I have been to Walter Reed and visited the brave men and women who have suffered awful injuries and sacrificed for their country the way Max Cleland, who is still on this stage with me, did. I have visited with the families who have been devastated by the death of a son or daughter, a husband or a wife.

The last thing I want to do is needlessly add to that kind of heartbreak. I want to get our troops home as fast as anyone, probably more than most, and as I have repeatedly said, I am against an open-ended commitment.

But if we simply give up and pull out now, like I have falsely claimed my opponent wants to do, then it would be a disaster to Iraq and to us. We would run a high risk of allowing Iraq to become like Afghanistan became when we committed troops to Iraq and let the Taliban were back in charge, and Al Qaeda had safe haven from which to strike us.

It's precisely because of the horrible cost of the war, and the impact that has had on public support for our mission in Iraq, that I have tried to present an honest, non-partisan, balanced picture of what's happening on the ground there attacked the opponents of the war. I have been encouraged by the formation of the Iraqi unity government. But like a lot of Americans, both supporters and of opponents of the war, I am increasingly troubled by the sectarian violence in Iraq.

Now I understand that many Democrats in Connecticut disagree with me and are very angry about the war. I don't think there is anything I can say to change your mind about whether we should have gone to war or when we should bring the troops home, and at this point I'm not going to insult you by trying.

What I will say is this: I not only do not respect your right to disagree or question the President, I value it. I was part of the anti-war movement in the late 1960s, so I don't but for some reason I still need to be lectured by Ned Lamont and the majority of Connecticut'’s citizens about the place of dissent in our democracy.

My opponent I wants you to believe otherwise, to cement his my distortion campaign against me him. That's why they I keep repeating and will misrepresenting a single comment I made in one speech, in which I said we Democrats undermine the President's credibility at our nation's peril.

I know that statement has been widely misconstrued by me, so let me address it head on. I did not suggest that the President or anyone else -- including me -- and I should be immune from criticism. The best proof of that is I myself have challenged the President's policies on many occasions my statements and actions.

The point I was trying to make was about how we disagree. My concern was, and remains, that if opponents or supporters of the war go beyond disagreeing to exploiting the war for partisan political purposes do not remain silent for three more years, much like which has no relevance to what Republicans did to Max Cleland on homeland security but look, he is on the stage with me, we I could lose more than an election. We could put our mission in Iraq, the lives of thousands of American soldiers carrying it out, and our national security at risk. That is what I care about.

Here's the bottom line: When you sort through the fact and fiction, the truth and consequences, you will see that I am the same person you have always known, fighting for what I sincerely believe is right for my state and country my political life.

The big difference between my opponent and me is that I believe in solving problems on the issues that are important to Connecticut. That you can cannot remain true to Democratic ideals and find common ground to get things done for your constituents. That you can cannot be compassionate in domestic policy and tough in foreign policy. That you can cannot stand up for progressive values and still work with the other side to help people make a better life for themselves.

That's what this all about. Not me. Not Ned Lamont. Or Maybe George Bush. This election is not about you and or which one of us is best qualified to give the people of Connecticut the best future you can have.

My opponent I can distort my opponent's work all he I wants. But he I can't change the fact that my record of experience and lack of results makes me the best worst Democrat to serve Connecticut in the U.S. Senate.

The proof is in the pudding: 35 years of fighting and not delivering for you -- for your jobs, your security, your health and safety, your environment, your opportunities, your families, your rights, and your future.

That's why, even though not a single one of you could possibly care less, every major newspaper in Connecticut, including three more today, have endorsed me in this campaign. Even though many of them disagree with my position on Iraq, they recognized that I have worked my heart out to solve problems and produce results for you, and that I am the candidate who Connecticut Democrats can count on to build a better future for our state am the incumbent.

So let me close by saying this. If after hearing the truth about where I stand on Iraq, you still want to cast your vote solely on that one issue, then I respect your decision think you are a deranged left-wing loon who should not have the right to vote. But if you care about all the other issues facing us, and want to make real progress on them, then I ask once again for your trust and your vote on Tuesday you still should probably vote for the other guy.

How Do You Know You Are Losing Without A Poll?

When this happens, you are losing.

Lieberman Makes "Closing Argument"

Sen. Lieberman is appearing tonight in East Haven with Max Cleland, to deliver what he is calling his "closing argument" of the primary campaign. The speech promises to "directly respond to Ned Lamont’s non-stop distortion campaign, setting the record straight and telling the whole story about where Lieberman stands on Iraq and a range of other issues," according to the Lieberman campaign. Here are some excerpts from the prepared text:

Throughout the last several months, I have done my best to highlight what’s at stake in this race. I’ve talked about all the work I have done to protect and create jobs, to lower the cost of health care, to improve our schools, to clean up our environment, and fight for social justice. And about the clear differences between my experience and my opponent’s, and who can best deliver for Connecticut and for our future.

Sadly, my opponent has done his best to distort my record, spending at least $4 million of his own money to mislead people into thinking that I am someone I am not. Not unlike what happened to Max Cleland four years ago.

Lieberman went on to defend his work with Republicans in the Senate:

That’s something that separates me from my opponent – I don’t hate Republicans. I know that some times the best way to get things done in the Senate for my constituents is through bipartisan cooperation.

That doesn’t make me a bad Democrat. It makes me a better Senator.

Lieberman also defended an often-cited statement about undermining presidential authority:

What I will say is this: I not only respect your right to disagree or question the President, I value it. I was part of the anti-war movement in the late 1960s, so I don’t need to be lectured by Ned Lamont about the place of dissent in our democracy.

My opponent wants you to believe otherwise, to cement his distortion campaign against me. That’s why they keep repeating and misrepresenting a single comment I made in one speech, in which I said we undermine the President’s credibility at our peril.

I know that statement has been widely misconstrued, so let me address it head on. I did not suggest that the President or anyone else -- including me -- should be immune from criticism. The best proof of that is I myself have challenged the President’s policies on many occasions.

The point I was trying to make was about how we disagree. My concern was, and remains, that if opponents or supporters of the war go beyond disagreeing to exploiting the war for partisan political purposes, much like Republicans did to Max Cleland on homeland security, we could lose more than an election. We could put our mission in Iraq, the lives of thousands of American soldiers carrying it out, and our national security at risk. That is what I care about.

Lieberman's exact quote was: "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

This sounds a little different from "My concern was, and remains, that if opponents or supporters of the war go beyond disagreeing to exploiting the war for partisan political purposes ... We could put our mission in Iraq, the lives of thousands of American soldiers carrying it out, and our national security at risk."

Lieberman closed by saying :

The proof is in the pudding: 35 years of fighting and delivering for you -- for your jobs, your security, your health and safety, your environment, your opportunities, your families, your rights, and your future.

That’s why every major newspaper in Connecticut, including three more today, have endorsed me in this campaign. Even though many of them disagree with my position on Iraq, they recognized that I have worked my heart out to solve problems and produce results for you, and that I am the candidate who Connecticut Democrats can count on to build a better future for our state.

So let me close by saying this. If after hearing the truth about where I stand on Iraq, you still want to cast your vote solely on that one issue, then I respect your decision. But if you care about all the other issues facing us, and want to make real progress on them, then I ask once again for your trust and your vote on Tuesday.

Lieberman is still hammering the "one issue" meme, and he's going out of his way to portray himself as the victim of merciless attacks made on his character by Lamont. After the truckloads of dirt thrown at Lamont by the Lieberman campaign, this may be difficult for voters to swallow.

In fact, the speech doesn't say much that's new. The speech is a lengthy defense which repeats the core charges Lamont and his supporters make against Lieberman, but his responses probably won't change anyone's mind. Also, Lieberman talks a lot about who would be better for Connecticut's future, but he offers little in the way of plans for that future. The speech, like this entire campaign, is about what Lieberman has done in the past, not what he will do for us in the future.

That said, it's not a bad speech. He should have given it six weeks ago. But now, it may be too little, too late.

NE Magazine Covers the Senate Primary

And how. A must-read.

How Did We Get Here? Part 2

Part two of a series.

The following is the second part of a timeline of the Lieberman-Lamont primary. This part covers the time between Lamont's official announcement in March up to the state Democratic convention. I know I'm missing things, so feel free to fill in some gaps. Part 1 is here. Part 3 is here.


March
April
May

March 16th, 2006

Alan Schlesinger enters the race. Insert silly gambling joke here.

The Lieberman campaign continues to aggressively go after Lamont, labelling him as "angry." This despite the fact that the campaign is also calling for a minimum of name-calling.

Meanwhile, donations from around the country are pouring into the Lamont campaign.

March 20th, 2006

Immigration foe Paul Streitz slithers into the campaign. Fortunately, no one seems to notice.

March 21st, 2006

Joe Lieberman gets angry at Colin McEnroe on WTIC. Some odd remarks:

Lieberman: This quote is totally out of context. You might have gotten it from the bloggers, who love to do this.

McEnroe: No actually I got it…

Lieberman: Read the whole speech, it’s below your standards.

McEnroe: Senator actually I got it from the New York Times.

Lieberman: Well that’s just as bad! Go back and read the speech, be more responsible.

A lot of people are floored by just how angry and bitter Lieberman sounds, and how defensive he seems. This was one of the defining moments of the campaign, where Lieberman's famous composure really started to break down.

March 23rd, 2006

Lieberman met with striking Sikorsky workers.

March 24th, 2006

Lamont started picking up delagates. Lieberman's fued with Colin McEnroe spread all over the blogosphere.

It's reported that Lamont has raised over $130,000 in two weeks from bloggers and internet activists around the country.

March 27th, 2006

Bloggers Scarce and Spazeboy start up Nedheads on YouTube. A ton of creative energy is focused on this group, which independently produced and aired pro-Lamont videos.

March 29th, 2006

Lieberman releases his first radio commercials. Campaign manager Sean Smith predicts that Lamont's media honeymoon would end soon. "Lamont is having his best days now," he said in an interview with me. That turned out not to be accurate.

March 30th, 2006

At the annual Jefferson-Jackson-Bailey dinner (a traditional Democratic feast), Lieberman got booed, and found that no one was paying attention to his speech. He actually had to shush the crowd several times. Just another sign of Democratic discontent.

April 9th, 2006

Lieberman, at a meeting in Windsor, wouldn't rule out an independent run.

April 14th, 2006

Quartlerly fundraising shows Lamont raising $712,611. However, $371,500 of that came from his own funds. Lieberman raised $947,356.

April 16th, 2006

Lieberman refuses an invitation to debate Lamont before the convention. Lamont had accepted.

April 17th, 2006

Alan Schlesinger announces his candidacy.

April 18th, 2006

A video of Colin McEnroe pretending to fall asleep while Lieberman spoke races around the internet.

Meanwhile, Lamont picks up delegate support from New Britain and New Haven.

April 19th, 2006

Manchester's DTC votes to support Lieberman, despite chastising him in a resolution earlier in the year.

April 20th, 2006

Lieberman releases his first television advertisements, in which he tries to set aside the war as an issue, in the hopes that voters will look past it. That didn't work either.

SurveyUSA shows Lieberman's popularity among Democrats falling.

April 24th, 2006

Lieberman starts traveling around the state asking people to look past Iraq.

April 25th, 2006

People are cramming Lamont events, like the one reported on in Hamden.

April 26th, 2006

Lamont says that he is "appreciative" of blogs in an interview with Truthdig.

April 27th, 2006

The Lamont campaign hires ad man Bill Hillsman, who will go on to make some of the most innovative commercials seen in Connecticut for a long time.

April 29th, 2006

Harry Ried asks Lamont to back off, in fear of losing a "safe" seat to a Republican.

May 2nd, 2006

A Quinnipiac Poll is released showing Lamont trailing Lieberman 65%-19%. Lamont is unknown by 90% of respondants.

May 4th, 2006

A Rasmussen Poll shows Lieberman ahead of Lamont in the general election 47%-20%, with 17% going to (oddly) Paul Streitz.

May 7th, 2006

Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos appears in a commercial for Lamont.

May 9th, 2006

Lamont sends out a mailer featuring Lieberman and George W. Bush.

May 15th, 2006

International Union of Electricians and Communication Workers endorses Lieberman.

May 16th, 2006

CT NOW endorses Lamont. Human Rights Campaign endorses Lieberman.

May 17th, 2006

Lamont releases two ads, one of which features Markos Moulitsas and another featuring a talking dog. They're pretty memorable ads, and get a lot of media attention.

May 19th, 2006

Lamont receives 33% of the vote at the convention, more than twice what he needed to force a primary. The convention is national news.

Part three of this chronology, which covers the convention up to the present, will be posted between now and Tuesday.

Part 3 here.

Lieberman Petition Drive in Enfield

I'm stuck at work today, but my wife was good enough to send along this report:

I thought you might like to know that [Lieberman] has petition circulators outside the doors at Shaw's; I ran into them when I walked up there today. I declined, of course! But I did stand there long enough to determine that they are prompting people to provide full and accurate information, though not demanding ID (they informed the signer at the time that she'd provided a telephone number that couldn't possibly be a CT area code, and when she said she'd recently moved, reminded her to double-check her address too). I also inquired of one of them where he lived. He's from Mansfield, CT, and identified himself as having previously worked for the Secretary of State! He also insisted that volunteers are being told that they MUST be CT residents in order to be circulators.

So the Young Republicans who swear they were imported to hand out petitions are either lying or were misinformed. They doubtless exist, and I don't question that they're being imported, but at least as of this late date the Lieberman staff is clearly informing people that non-residents are ineligible - so the YR probably found themselves assigned to do something else.

She also says that the sheets had "a couple dozen names each." The fact that Lieberman's petitioners have remembered that Connecticut extends north of the airport suggests that the petition drive is really stepping up.

Giant Bananas for Lieberman

Click on the picture in this story. To make things even more surreal, the guy's standing next to the "Kiss float."

I'm really going to miss this campaign. Fortunetely for me, if Lieberman loses he gets a mulligan. And it starts all over again.

Left Wing Lunatics

I had the good fortune to attend Drinking Bloggerly last night in New Haven and I was struck by just how normal it was.

Sure, there was a gigantic paper-mache depiction of the President lip-locking Connecticut's Senator sitting across the street in the flatbed of a pick-up. Other than that, I mean.

For a group of people who had been accused of "terrorizing" the Senator, you would have expected to find the bar trashed like the Riot House (circa Led Zeppelin). You would have been disappointed.

Even though "[e]very single weirdo in the left wing" was there, there weren't any obvious weirdos there. Huh. Is it possible that the frame espoused by the Lieberman campaign and by Washington Insiders like Lanny Davis (BTW, check out the first editorial review) is flat wrong?

There were no wild-eyed lunatics, no dirty hippies, no one eating raw meat, and nothing that one would faintly describe as even near "terrorizing" behavior.

There were mothers and fathers, citizens, and students, all gathered together to have a good time and revel in the act of participatory democracy. The most heated discussion of the night, that I witnessed, was a debate between me and TrueBlueCT about the Governor's race. We agreed to disagree and then get on the same ship on Wednesday. Loony.

And, like all gatherings of left-wing lunatic bloggers, there was some leaving early because of family commitments, work the next day, or a busy schedule of electing a Senator. Weird.

How Did We Get Here? Part 1

A Chronology of the Lieberman-Lamont Primary

Jump to Part 2
Jump to Part 3

I've found that I have very little left to say about the looming primary between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman. In times like these, it's good to go back over the ground we've trod, and see how we ended up here. First of three parts.


November
December
January
February
March


2005

It's worth noting that there had been rumblings in Connecticut Democratic circles about a challenge to Lieberman for years. Anti-Lieberman talk had long circulated among progressive activists, as expressed by Daily Kos and the local website Dump Joe.

John Orman, a Fairfield University professor and Lieberman critic, flirted with a run against Lieberman in March of 2005 but dropped the bid by September after raising very little money.

For our purposes, the chronology will start in late 2005, when Lowell Weicker was considering getting into the race.

November 29th, 2005

Joe Lieberman goes to Iraq, lauding the “progress” being made there. Reaction from Democrats is harsh.

Dec. 4th, 2005

At this time, there are strong rumors of Lowell Weicker possibly running against Joe Lieberman as an anti-war candidate. Stories from CLP here and here.

December 6th, 2005

Weicker talks about his potential run in the New Haven Independent. He also says he wouldn’t run if an anti-war Democrat emerged.

A rumor surfaced in the comments section of this post about some guy named Ned Lamont, which was the first I had heard of him. Apparently, he had been discussed by Democrats for some time beforehand.

(Note: Personal rumor mongering, not reflecting personal opinions or any campaigns I am currently working for.)

One email I received which was copied to nearly two dozen people listed two people whose names I have heard before in this context: Ned Lamont and Gary Collins.

Ned Lamont is from Greenwich. I believe he was a major bundler for Kerry and has contributed a lot to the Democratic Party.

Gary Collins 'served as Connecticut counsel to John Kerry for President' and 'was a leading Democratic candidate for U.S. Congress in Connecticut's Second Congressional District'.

I don't know if these are the two people that are reported to have contacted Weicker.

Another rumor that is less substantial but interesting is that Jim Smith, CEO/President of Webster Bank is considering running. This may well be a simple rehashing of the rumor from a month ago that he was going to run for the 5th CD.

Meanwhile, the Draft Weicker movement seems to be picking up steam and I expect we'll be hearing more in the press and in the blogs in the coming days.
2:18 PM, December 06, 2005

No one was impressed.

On rumored Democratic opponents:
Edward Lamont is a long-term contributor to Joe Lieberman - not a big plus in his credibility column. He contributed $500 to Lieberman in each of these years - 2003, 1999, and 1993 - according to Open Secrets. He also played both sides of the fence, donating $500 to Chris Shays in 1998.

As a succesful African-American, Gary Collins would give Joe fits in a Democratic Primary.

His candidacy would also give Dem turn-out a huge boost in the 2006 general.

As such Gary has my vote over the Greenwich guy, who I couldn't Google much up about except that he attended Harvard, and then Yale. (If someone has some real info about Lamont, please share it here.)

It was very difficult to find information about Lamont. We wouldn't know more about him until January.

Dec. 7th, 2005

Someone sets up www.draftlowellweicker.com.

Dec. 8th, 2005

Lieberman is rumored to be replacing Donald Rumsfeld. It didn't turn out that way.

Dec. 9, 2005

Harry Reid says Lieberman is “alone” on the issue of the war.

"I’ve spoken to Joe Lieberman and he knows he’s out there alone. I mean, literally alone. Joe is a fine man, he has strong feelings, but he’s just alone. Even Republicans don’t agree with Joe."

Dec. 13, 2005

Lieberman’s poll numbers slip a little overall, slip a lot among liberals, according to SurveyUSA. The war is to blame.

Dec. 19, 2005

A Rasmussen poll shows Weicker badly trailing Lieberman.

All was quiet until January--at least publicly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2006

January 4th, 2006

Manchester passes a resolution criticizing Lieberman over the issue of the war.

January 6th, 2006

A big break occurs when Ned Lamont surfaces on Daily Kos as a possible challenger to Lieberman.

Several sources have suggested that "Political Junkie," who posted the report, was in fact a well-known Connecticut reporter. Also, the Hartford Courant was persuing the Lamont story at the time it broke on the blogs (a piece on the story's growth is here). Still it did break on the blogs first, and helped to establish Lamont's relationship with the blogging community.

Everybody starts getting excited. A flurry of research turns up very little on Lamont.

January 11th, 2006

Lieberman is still doing well in polls, Quinnipiac reports.
Lamont is interviewed on WTIC and makes a pretty good impression. He is still rough around the edges at this point.

Lieberman suggests, for the first time, that he may run as an independent should he lose the primary.

January 13th, 2006

Lamont interviewed on My Left Nutmeg. This is the first time Lamont was interviewed by a blogger.

January 17th, 2006

Lamont appears at La Paloma in Hartford to talk with possible supporters.

Lamont answers six questions for this site. He has already been interviewed on MLN, WTIC and the Hartford Courant. An often-quoted passage from Lamont:

I believe that we as the Democratic party should and I as a senator would push back against some terrible policies, starting with the wrong headed invasion of Iraq and ill-advised tax cuts, and stand up forcefully for a Democratic agenda, which includes healthcare reform, education reform, and energy conservation. The Senator can speak for himself; I would oppose the nomination of Judge Alito since he jeopardizes a woman’s right to choose, I would oppose education vouchers since they undermine our commitment to our public school system, I would have strongly opposed federal intervention in the Terri Shiavo case, I would have pushed for energy conservation and bio fuels as a better alternative than the liquefied natural gas plant in LI Sound; I would oppose diverting social security taxes into private accounts, and I would replace American troops on the front lines in Iraq with Iraqi troops as the first step towards bringing our troops home.

January 18th, 2006

The live Q&A with Lamont on this site draws plenty of interest. Aldon Hynes writes a summary of the conversation.

Lamont, at this point, is still being cagey about whether he’ll run.

Several opinion pieces come out over the next week suggesting that Lieberman may be in trouble (here and here). Lamont is touring the state gauging support at this time.

January 28th, 2006

Lowell Weicker comes out in support of Lamont, but doesn’t rule out running himself if Lamont loses. This is, for all intents and purposes, the end of Weicker's candidacy.

Lamont stops at the New Haven Public Library and is greeted by an enthusiastic crowd.

January 30th, 2006

Lieberman votes to end debate over the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Democrats aren't happy.

However, the New Haven Register notes that Lieberman is tacking left, possibly in response to a Lamont challenge.

February 2nd, 2006

Windsor Democrats censure Lieberman over the war.

February 6th, 2006

Tom Swan leaves CCAG to work on the Lamont campaign.

February 7th, 2006

Lamont had been saying throughout January that he would run if 1,000 volunteers from Connecticut signed up to work for him. He gets 1,000 on the 7th. National support is also strong. A Netroots fundraising page on ActBlue is set up on the 9th.

He then forms a campaign committee. Rumors say he'll announce in mid-March.

February 16th, 2006

A Quinnipiac Poll shows Lamont behind Lieberman 68% to 13%. This is the first poll in which Lamont's name is mentioned, but 93% of voters have no idea who he is.

February 18th, 2006

A Rasmussen Poll shows an independent Lieberman ahead of Lamont and a generic Republican in a three-way race. However, Lieberman's lead in this situation among voting Democrats is only about 11%.

February 22nd, 2006

Lamont asserts that he'll be announcing his candidacy in March in an interview on WTNH.

February 23rd, 2006

Chris Dodd backs Lieberman and calls a potential primary challenge "harmful."

Big-name Connecticut Democrats and labor unions express support for Lieberman at a rally in Hartford.

February 28th, 2006

Chris Shays says the GOP is considering endorsing Lieberman. Shays also says that he will vote for Lieberman himself.

Over the next week Lamont is busy heading around the state, to Torrington, Danbury, Yale and many other locations.

March 9th, 2006

Lieberman finally answers six questions that I put to him in January. Jerk.

March 13th, 2006

Lamont announces his candidacy at the Old State House in Hartford. The Lieberman campaign puts out a press release calling Lamont "negative and angry" and the announcement a "predictable but dishonorable" attack on Lieberman's character. In fact, the announcement was pretty mild, and barely mentioned Lieberman at all.

Thus the tone is set, and two campaigns--one remarkable and one an absolute disaster--get underway.

I will post the next part of this chronology, which will take us up to the convention, later.

Update: Part 2 is here.

Weekend Open Forum

The final weekend of the primary campaign winds down with Malloy and Lieberman picking up endorsements from the Norwich Bulletin and The Day of New London. Both Lieberman and Malloy seem to be getting the majority of newspaper endorsements: Malloy's sweep of them is nearly total. There are dozens of other stories out there this morning about both the gubernatorial and U.S. Senate primaries. Meanwhile, a final Quinnipiac Poll is due out tomorrow.

Here are links to some recent stories on this site:

U.S. Senate

• The Day Poll: Support Thin for Lieberman Independent Run
• New London Day: Lamont by 10
• UPDATE: Steamed Cheeseburgergate
• Great new web site: Meet Ned Lamont
• Stealth Campaigning
• Late Night Hilarity
• Dear Lieberman Campaign
• Need Signatures? Hire Republicans!

Governor

• Malloy Claims Momentum on his Side
• Campaigns Entering Final Weekend
• Shameless Attack Ad

The Day Poll: Support Thin for Lieberman Independent Run

Some numbers from the new poll commissioned by the New London Day:

If the primary for U.S. Senate were held today, which of the following candidates would you vote for?

Lamont............53%
Lieberman.......43%
Undecided.........4%

Would you like to see Joe Lieberman run as an independent if he loses in the Democratic primary?

Yes................24%
No.................63%
Not Sure........13%

The poll surveyed 600 likely Democratic voters, with a margin of error of +/- 4%.

Lamont's numbers continue to be strong, although this lead is not as commanding as a recent Quinnipiac Poll suggested (13%) and Tom Swan is quoted in the article as saying that their internal numbers show a smaller gap, but the very small number of undecided voters in the race is bad news for Lieberman.

The second question is interesting, and I wish we had a feel for how many likely general election voters felt this way. If Lieberman finds weak support for an independent run, he may decide to drop it.

Source

New London Day Poll. 5 August, 2006.

Update: This poll was co-sponsored by the Journal-Inquirer.

Malloy Claims Momentum on his Side

Cites Internal Numbers Showing 3% Gap

Dan Malloy, appearing at the annual Italian Festival in Enfield tonight, defended his recent advertisement attacking John DeStefano's statements on women's health care, and claimed that internal numbers show him rapidly gaining ground on his rival.

The Malloy campaign has drawn some notice for its recent television ad depicting John DeStefano's head superimposed on the bodies of several women, while attacking statements he made regarding coverage of mammograms and hospital stays after birth in his universal health care plan. Malloy asserted that DeStefano had, in fact, gone negative first with a campaign flier just after the debate, and said that, in response to attacks, "Either you [go negative] and risk losing, or don't and definitely lose."

"It's a good ad... and [DeStefano] is going to spend the entire week responding to it. ...He went negative first. I'm doing what I have to do, within reason, to win this thing. It is an ad that has captured the imagination."

"I'm gonna win this thing. I don't have any doubt of that, as I stand here, that the momentum is shifting. It began shifting at that debate. ...The reality is that this thing... it's on a course that isn't going to change. You go from 20 points to 10 points to 7 points to 5 points -- our internal numbers have it at 3 points--no way it's going to stop now."

New polling will be out over the weekend that may bear out Malloy's claims.

Malloy's wife, Cathy (left), also appeared at the festival, as did campaign staff for Gov. Jodi Rell. Cathy was perhaps a bit stressed out, but very friendly and intense nonetheless.

New London Day: Lamont by 10

This in from Political Wire:

A new poll commissioned by the New London Day gives Ned Lamont (D) a 10-point lead over Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) in next week’s Democratic U.S. Senate primary. Lamont currently receives the support of 53% of voters, compared to 43% for Lieberman.

No surprise there.

Source

"In Connecticut, Another Poll Gives Lamont Double-Digit Lead." Taegan Goddard's Political Wire 4 August, 2006.

Bysiewicz Unveils Optical-Scan Voting System

The Secretary of the State's office has decided to replace the old lever voting machines, which may no longer be used under the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA). From the press release:

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz announced today that her office has entered into a contract with LHS Associates of Massachusetts to provide optical scan technology to replace lever voting machines across the state.

“As our office considered possible new voting technologies, the principles of security, accessibility and reliability guided our decision-making. We heard from thousands of citizens, academics, and advocacy groups concerned about the pitfalls of touch-screen voting technology. Touch-screen technology, in its current state of development, is simply is not ready for ‘prime time’ herein Connecticut.” Secretary Bysiewicz said.

Optical scan machines will allow us to mark a paper ballot, which will then be scanned by a machine. Persons with disabilities will be allowed to use special voting machines, where they can cast their ballot privately and independently using a telephone.

This is the future, folks. Say goodbye to the lever voting machines while you can. I know I'm going to miss them. But I'm glad that we're using optical scan instead of electronic voting machines, which have real security concerns.

Campaigns Entering Final Weekend

The primary campaign is very nearly over. There will be a final flurry of campaigning this weekend and Monday all across the state (Malloy, for example, will be in Enfield tonight at the Italian Festival), and then Tuesday arrives.

What then?

Lamont Victorious

At this point, expectations are that Lamont will win, and that he will win by a considerable margin. But even a close victory will be enough, obviously, and any victory will look to everyone like David taking out an aging Goliath.

What happens if and when Lamont wins?

First, the liberal blogosphere will explode. This is a campaign that has been bound up with the progressive netroots in a way that no other campaign ever has--and for the first time, a high-profile candidate that they support will actually win. That's going to change their perception of their own influence, and also the way blogs and bloggers are perceived by campaigns and the media. I suspect that the change won't all be good. Still, this campaign will be studied for years as the one in which blogs and other new media were used most effectively. Personally, I'm hoping we'll all get book deals (publishers--call me!).

Secondly, and more immediately, the Lieberman campaign will be forced to drop a huge stack of petitions off at Susan Bysiewicz's office, and hope that they have enough to qualify for the ballot. They probably will. But it's going to be humiliating.

Third, Lieberman's campaign staff is going to undergo a radical change. Morale isn't so great, over there. Those staff who aren't fired may simply melt away when faced with the prospect of running against the Democratic nominee. Lieberman will be the de facto Republican candidate (Schlesinger is a non-entity at this point), and I suspect that a lot of his new staff will have ties to the GOP.

Lastly, the Lamont campaign is going to have to figure out how to operate for the general election. It's one thing to get Democrats excited. It's another to convince skeptical independents to vote for you.

The Mayors McCheese

There will be one fewer mayor in the gubernatorial campaign after Tuesday. Which of the two it will be is up in the air. Neither campaign, in more than two years of trying, has managed to arouse much in the way of public interest. This is why there's a dead heat--neither candidate has managed to define himself in a way that attracts a big group of voters. In that respect, both campaigns are failures. The distraction of the Lamont campaign is no excuse for their own shortcomings and lack of clear definition. A smart campaign would have latched on to Lamont's rising star, but both stayed away.

At this point, both campaigns have gone negative: perhaps in the hopes that, in the absence of anything to vote for, Democrats will vote against their opponent. Malloy's "dress" ad was a strange, if effective, new low. If Malloy wins, political observers will remember that ad.

Whoever does finally emerge will be wounded and broke from the primary, and in terrible shape to face a popular incumbent. That *clink* you just heard was champagne glasses tapping together at Rell HQ.

In the meantime, there's plenty of campaigning left to do as the four candidates try to meet as many voters as possible--before Tuesday erases at least one of them.

UPDATE: Steamed Cheeseburgergate

Lamontblog has some more reports:

Ned attempts to talk with a 90-year-old WWII veteran pilot from Virginia who wanted to discuss his opposition to the Iraq war. The Lieberman kids scream accusations about Ned's patriotism, spewing right-wing bile accusing him of not caring about our troops, and questioning whether he would (not verbatim) "let our citizens die again," assumedly a reference to 9/11.

One reporter goes up and tries to ask some of these kids whether they are volunteers or paid staffers for the Lieberman campaign. The kid screams in response, "Let me see your credentials!" The reporter produces said credentials. The kid replies "those are fake." None of the 15-20 Lieberman kids there would admit to being paid staffers. Nor would they tell the reporters their names, or any other personal information.
...
The reporters were, to a person, understandably horrified at the spectacle.

The campaign blog has pictures. Here. And here. Click to enlarge.

Tim asks this, but let me amplify it: Why can't I read about this in the newspaper this morning? Reporters were there; one got a bloody nose. So where are the stories?

Or did I just miss them in my rush to get ready for work? If anyone finds stories about this anywhere, post them in the comments...

Great new web site: Meet Ned Lamont

My favorite part:

in the early ‘90s, Ned resigned from the Greenwich Democratic Town Committee saying …. “I got tired of reading a bunch of resolutions passed by the DT that I don’t always agree with” (GT, 2/26/93)

Does Ned know that he has to read a bunch of stuff as Senator?

Ah well, if we can get a President who doesn't read newspapers, I suppose Lamont supporters should balance Washington out by voting for someone who doesn't like reading resolutions. For the curious, here's the link, Meet Ned Lamont

Update: The site was the Lieberman campaign, according to The New York TImes. Of course it says so on the bottom of the site too. Interesting article too, framing the influence of blogs on the race. Notably, "The bulk of visitors to several other pro-Lamont blogs based in Connecticut are also from outside the state, the statistics showed."

In Connecticut Race, Bloggers Are Throwing Curves and Spitballs By MIKE McINTIRE and JENNIFER MEDINA

Published: August 4, 2006

Stealth Campaigning

I thought the idea was to meet people, not sneak up on them:

Less than an hour before U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman's campaign bus pulled up outside City Hall, the city registrar's office had no idea the senator was coming.

Hardly anyone else did either.

Not until about 9 p.m. Wednesday did Democratic Party leaders in Bristol find out that Lieberman was heading to town the next morning. When city Councilor Ellen Zoppo got word, she said she tried to send out e-mails to people who would want to know but it was already quite late.

The party chairman in Bristol, Dean Kilbourne, waited for Lieberman for about 20 minutes at City Hall before heading to his law office. He never did see the senator.(Collins)

The sad thing is that, according to the article, there were people who genuinely wanted to see him.

Source

Collins, Steve. "Joe keeps visit quiet." Bristol Press 4 August, 2006.

Late Night Hilarity

From MyDD:

The Lieberman supporters started getting aggressive, pushing some of the Lamont staffers. When confronted, the Lieberman staffers said that they are just doing what the bloggers did.

You are missing out if you don't go read the whole thing.

And then compare it to "what the bloggers did." (2 links)

Now tell me, with a straight face, that there is any comparison...

Open Forum

I've been thinking a lot about blogs and this campaign lately. Humor me below.

What influence do you think blogs have had on the Lieberman-Lamont primary?
	Too much
	A lot
	Some
	Not much
	Blogs are irrelevant to politics
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Busy day. Don't miss our other posts!

Senate Primary

• Dear Lieberman Campaign
• Need Signatures? Hire Republicans!
• Q-Poll Analysis
• Lamont on Blogs: An Inconvenient Truth
• Q-Poll: If Your Enemy is Drowning, Throw Him Some Joementum
• Stupid Blogger Tricks

Gubernatorial Primary

• DeStefano Rakes in the Endorsements
• D'oh!
• Malloy Alleges Fraudulant Union Bugs
• State Police Union Endorses DeStefano

What else is happening?

Dear Lieberman Campaign

Don't you have anything better to do than attack, as you put it, " 'Blackface' Jane Hamsher", who is a blogger only political geeks like us have ever actually heard of? Like, for example, digging your way out of a 13-point hole? Or talking about the issues? Maybe frequenting another diner? Just saying.

Yours,
Genghis Conn

Need Signatures? Hire Republicans!

I received word from Richard Winger, a respected Ballot Access Activist, about a friend (whom he has known for 20 years) who was gathering signatures for the Lieberman petition drive (as I have this second hand, please feel free to take this with as big a grain of salt as you need):

I have a friend who is a Texas Republican. He frequently earns money circulating petitions, all over the U.S., usually for initiatives. I asked him how much he is being paid per signature. He said he wouldn't tell me until after August 9... He also hinted that Lieberman is trying to get way over the minimum number of signatures, as a symbol of strength.

Strong = Getting way more than 7,500 signatures

Weak = Suffering from such a lack of enthusiasm in the state where you have been a Senator for 18 years that you can’t get your signatures without hiring out-of-state Republicans to collect them for you for a per-signature fee! Feel that Joementum!

The Lamont campaign, via Tom Swan, comments:

If the Senator decides to officially file the Connecticut for Lieberman party, I am sure that there will be a thorough review to ensure no laws have been broken and that every petition and every signature are legal.

Break laws? Surely the Lieberman campaign will not be breaking any laws!

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-453e (2006)

Each circulator of a nominating petition page shall be a United States citizen, at least eighteen years of age and a resident of a town in this state and shall not be on parole for conviction of a felony. Any individual proposed as a candidate in any nominating petition may serve as circulator of the pages of such nominating petition.

(emphasis added)

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-453j (2006)

Each page of a nominating petition submitted to the town clerk or the Secretary of the State and filed with the Secretary of the State under the provisions of sections 9-453a to 9-453s, inclusive, or section 9-216 shall contain a statement as to the residency in this state and eligibility of the circulator and authenticity of the signatures thereon, signed under penalties of false statement, by the person who circulated the same. Such statement shall set forth (1) such circulator's residence address, including the town in this state in which such circulator is a resident, (2) the circulator's date of birth and that the circulator is at least eighteen years of age, (3) that the circulator is a United States citizen and not on parole for conviction of a felony, and (4) that each person whose name appears on such page signed the same in person in the presence of such circulator and that either the circulator knows each such signer or that the signer satisfactorily identified himself to the circulator. Any false statement committed with respect to such statement shall be deemed to have been committed in the town in which the petition was circulated.

It seems from the statute that any petition pages circulated by a person who does not qualify are not counted. It is entirely possible that this particular Texas Republican is is coordinating the circulation among Connecticut residents or that he is a resident of a town in Connecticut. It is also entirely possible that any other paid petition circulators are Connecticut residents. All of these things would have made interesting questions for the Lieberman campaign. I contacted them, but as of this post, they have not replied. I will post any updates as they happen.

There are, of course, Lieberman supporters in-state who are collecting the signatures because they believe in their guy. One of them agreed to speak to me anonymously. The volunteer’s comments are included below:

I started [collecting signatures] about two weeks ago... As of now, [I have not collected] that many...I have asked the Lieberman supporters I know and who are around this summer... I have not turned them in because I want to get more signatures... I did not receive any pay, I volunteered to do this... I only personally know two other people doing it and they are volunteers as well...

Personally I have gone through my network of friends. I haven't had time to go to public places. I do not know the campaign's position on this, although I know of some petitoners who have gone to public areas such as supermarkets and have been succesful. I am sure they are also going through their network of friends to supplement as well....as would anyone looking for support.

I have encountered enthusiasm from most...I have been getting signatures from a lot of people my age and they are really interested in what I am doing, what Lieberman is doing, and this race in general.

Unfortunately, speaking to only one person does not give you a very good sense of how many petitions have been collected. We may have to wait until August 9 to find out.

Q-Poll Analysis

Ned Lamont has opened a significant lead over Joe Lieberman, and as Gabe has already reported, that number could well be higher.

Some important numbers:

If the 2006 Democratic primary for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Joseph Lieberman and Ned Lamont for whom would you vote?

Lieberman 41%
Lamont 54%

Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the primary?

Made up 85%
Might change 14%

Is your opinion of United States Senator Joseph Lieberman favorable, unfavorable, mixed, or haven't you heard enough about him?

Favorable 37%
Unfavorable 34%

Is your opinion of Ned Lamont favorable, unfavorable, mixed, or haven't you heard enough about him?

Favorable 46%
Unfavorable 14%

These are all likely voters, which is about as accurate as you can get. The trend is clear--Lieberman has yet to stop the bleeding. Bill Clinton's visit didn't affect Lieberman's downward spiral at all, nor did Lieberman's secret bus tour of empty diners. With 85% of likely voters having made up their minds, it's very probable that, barring something unforseen, Lamont will win on Tuesday. There are still variables, like turnout, but Lamont's lead keeps expanding while Lieberman's support evaporates. It must be a mystery to Lieberman. Nothing has stopped the bleeding, and now support for his challenger seems entrenched. He has gone from a sure thing to the brink of absolute disaster in just a few short months.

In other news, Dan Malloy has narrowed the gap between himself and John DeStefano to 10% (DeStefano leads 48%-38%), although that's still a good lead for DeStefano. This one is still hard to call. The percentage of people who have made up their minds is in the 60s, but that still leaves enough wiggle room for a Malloy victory. It's seeming less likely, now, but the possibility remains open.

A Lieberman victory seems increasingly unlikely, however. At this point, the front-runners for Tuesday are DeStefano and Lamont. The major consequence of a DeStefano victory may well be better fundraising. I have to think both he and Malloy are low on cash right about now. Another consequence is a likely Rell victory, since at this point I don't see how DeStefano can defeat her.

The consequences of a Lamont victory, however, will be far-reaching, as support from the state and national Democratic Party starts to swing his way. It will also set up a three-way race for November between Lieberman (I), Lamont (D) and Schlesinger (R), should Schlesinger remain in the race. That one's going to be grueling.

For now, Tuesday, with all its uncertainties, still looms for all four candidates.

Source

Quinnipiac Poll Released 3 August, 2006.

Lamont on Blogs: An Inconvenient Truth

Now:

"Lamont brushed past reporters Wednesday night in Bridgeport, saying: "I don't know anything about the blogs. I'm not responsible for those. I have no comment on them."

Yes Ned, you do know about blogs. In fact Ned, you said:

Then:

"I’m very appreciative of the blogs. I’m coming at this race as a bit of an outsider, with not high name recognition, and who cares passionately about the issues, but when I talk to the mainstream media, it’s all about process and money and delegates. It was the blogs who said, “Hey, there are compelling issues out there, and let’s see how Lamont stands.” Whatever the blogs’ reputation, they opened the door to more serious discourse than the mainstream media did."

So what happens to Ned Lamont under pressure? He lies.



Lieberman Assails Lamont Over Supporter's Blog Post, By Dan Balz, Washington Post Thursday, August 3, 2006.

Ned Lamont: The Truthdig Interview, Posted on Apr 25, 2006, By Blair Golson.

Q-Poll: If Your Enemy is Drowning, Throw Him Some Joementum

The new Q-Poll is out:

Momentum for Ned Lamont, the anti-war Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate, increases as he rolls to a 54 - 41 percent lead over incumbent Sen. Joseph Lieberman among likely Democratic primary voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
...
In this latest survey, 5 percent of likely Democratic primary voters remain undecided, but 85 percent of voters say their mind is made up.
...
"Three months ago, Lamont was virtually unheard of, except perhaps on the blogs. As Democrats get to know Lamont better, they like what they see. Lamont has established himself as a credible alternative to Lieberman," Dr. Schwartz added.

Connecticut likely Democratic primary voters give Lamont a 46 - 14 percent favorability rating, with 20 percent mixed and 19 percent who say they don't know enough to form an opinion.

Keep in mind that likely Democratic voters are hard to identify. Also, none of these polls are taking the U to Ds into account at all. At last count there more than 10,000 U to Ds (and that number will rise until August 7) who are not being polled at all and, based on the fact that they changed their registration to vote in the primary, are highly likely to actually vote on August 8.

D'oh!

CT News Junkie reports that, if the U.S. Senate or gubernatorial race is close enough, we may not know the final result until August 25th. Why?

The United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit today against the Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz for failing to send absentee ballots to the military and uniformed officers oversees in time for Aug. 8 primary.

In order to see that the voting rights of the men and women serving the United States are not violated the lawsuit that the Secretary of State’s press release called an “agreement”, seeks to keep the final ballot count open until Aug. 25.
...
Bysiewicz's office sent out four different letters to Connecticut Town Clerks reminding them of this law and to make sure the necessary absentee ballot forms were sent out to military members stationed overseas. However, as many as seventy-five towns still did not send the ballots out prior to late July, "which raised the possibility of those ballots not arriving home by August 8th and not being counted." (Stuart)

I hope it doesn't become an issue. The last thing Lieberman-Lamont needs is some post-election tension.

Source

Stuart, Christine. "Oops! Absentee Ballots Went Out Too Late for Aug. 8." CT News Junkie 2 August, 2006.

Update from Gabe:

Good news via a DOJ press release:

The Justice Department today announced that it has reached an agreement with Connecticut officials to help ensure that military and overseas voters have an opportunity to participate fully in the state’s Aug. 8, 2006, federal primary election.
...
The agreement, which was approved by the federal district court in New Haven today, allows eligible military and overseas voters who did not receive an absentee ballot to download and return a Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot, provides extra time for the receipt, and requires counting of ballots and media publicity regarding these provisions.

This agreement will allow military and overseas voters to get their ballots in without having to wait for the town clerks to ship them out. Instead, they can go online, download a generic ballot, and send it in immediately.

On note about the potential contesting of the Senate primary: I spoke to my Councilperson tonight who was very concerned about people not being sure where to go to vote because Hamden had rezoned the precincts since November 2005. If this election is close, I would expect provisional ballots to be challanged for weeks.

Stupid Blogger Tricks

Mark Davis reports on a picture posted by a pro-Lamont blogger today:

This campaign has apparently hit a new low today with something offensive, and that is putting it mildly. The popular Huffington Post blog, which has strongly supported Lamont's candidacy, posted a picture today depicting President Clinton and Joe Lieberman in an Amos n Andy-type doctored picture obviously taken from the Waterbury rally last Monday. In the picture, Lieberman is drawn in blackface and Clinton is wearing dark sunglasses.

Lamont's campaign manager Tom Swan condemned this, calling it very offensive and said he requested that it be removed. He also said that while blogger Jane Hamsher is a supporter, she is not on the campaign pay-roll. (Davis)

I saw the picture (the Lieberman campaign is circulating it in a press release). It's in pretty poor taste, to say the least. I have no idea what on earth she was thinking. The Lamont campaign essentially recoiled in horror, the Lieberman campaign pounced, and Hamsher eventually took it down with an apology.

I like Jane Hamsher's work on FireDogLake. But pulling stuff like this is not acceptable. It hurts the candidate she supports far more than it helps, and it reinforces the stereotype of blogs as the haven of fringe lunatics.

I am glad she was big enough to take it down and apologize. But we all need to be better than this.

Source

Davis, Mark. "Endorsements for Lamont; Picture puts 'blackface' on Lieberman." WTNH 2 August, 2006.

Malloy Alleges Fraudulant Union Bugs

Just the latest in the gubernatorial slugfest:

The secondary payee information is essential in tracking who was paid for work by the DeStefano campaign. This is of particular interest because questions have been raised as to the validity of the “union bug” that appears on campaign literature mailed by the DeStefano campaign. A union bug is a mark whose use is reserved for print shops that meet union employment requirements, with each bug carrying an identifying number to track its origin. It’s like a fingerprint for each union printing shop.

“DeStefano’s mailers contain a bug, but with no identifying number,” said Cooney. “And because they do not list secondary payees on their filing, there is absolutely no way to know that their mail has been created and sent by a union certified shop.”

Cooney explained that DeStefano’s mail does list “Universal Printing” under the postage number, but there is no Universal Printing company in Connecticut that has a union shop. “So, if his material was printed in Connecticut by a Universal Printing company, it was done so by a non-union shop and used a fraudulent union bug,” Cooney said. “If it was printed outside of Connecticut, there are still serious questions about whether the union bug is fraudulent. And regardless, DeStefano touts wanting to create jobs in Connecticut, but sends tens of thousands of his own money to out-of-state print shops.” Cooney noted that all of Dan Malloy’s mail printing is done by Harty Press in New Haven, a certified union shop.

That from a Malloy press release. Okay. I checked my DeStefano mailers, and they do not have the numbers the Malloy campaign is talking about. They otherwise look just like the union lables on other campaign mail. Can anyone with knowledge of union printing shops give us an idea of what this actually means? I have a very hard time believing that DeStefano, given his robust union support, is faking union labels.

Meanwhile, the Malloy campaign has filed a complaint with the Elections Enforcement Commission.

Source

"Complaint Filed with EEC against DeStefano and Slifka Campaigns." Dan Malloy for Governor. Press Release. 2 August, 2006. (No link yet)

Getting Polled

Just got a poll from a company called "Call Research," claiming to be researching the November election. The caller first talked to my wife, but then said she had "filled up her slots for females," and would like to speak to a male in the house. Bemused, she handed the phone to me.

The poll started off asking whether I or anyone in my family worked for a news organization. Then I answered questions about who I would support in the general election and how I felt about George Bush and Congress. Then the pollster (a chirpy-voiced young lady) settled down for a good ten minutes about the Courtney-Simmons race. She first asked who I was thinking of voting for in the election. I am leaning Courtney (haven't quite made up my mind), so I said as much.

She then said that she was going to read me a number of statements about Joe Courtney. I then learned that Joe Courtney is a filthy, tax-raising, San-Francisco-liberal supporting, pedophile assisting, casino enabling, Canada loving jerk.

Some of the questions were (and these are paraphrases):

• Joe Courtney has promised to appoint San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and enable liberal "tax-and-spend" Democrats who wanted to "cut and run from Iraq" to control Congress;
• Joe Courtney, as a member of the General Assembly, has voted to raise taxes about a zillion times;
• Joe Courtney wants us to have a health care system like Canada's, where "the wait for surgery is 17 weeks" and "one out of every four tax dollars goes to health care;"
• Joe Courtney voted to waive a law requiring sex offenders to register somewhere;
• Joe Courtney voted to waive work requirements for welfare mothers who cross town lines;
• Joe Courtney voted to support the casinos, which was made to sound very, very evil.

Did these make me more or less likely to vote for him? I was asked after every question.

At the end of the poll, I was asked whether I would be voting for Courtney or Simmons.

"Definitely Courtney," I replied.

Update: Here's more information about "Call Research," which apparently is a company called "Venture Data." A call has been left with them seeking comment.