The Story in Connecticut

Matt Stoller posits:

Now, this race is exceptionally strange, because it means that Connecticut is cutting against the national tide pretty aggressively. . . . Is the war is less important in Connecticut than nationally? I don't think so. Could it be Lamont? Is it because Lamont didn't successfully paint himself as opposed to the war? Not likely. So what is going on, exactly? . . . {I]n a nutshell. Joe Lieberman has promised to end the war in Iraq, and it's a message that a substantial number of antiwar Democrats, Republicans, and unaffiliated voters want to hear. . .

Boy does Matt give the Lamont campaign a free pass here. Lieberman has not said anything substantive on Iraq for months, including the primary campaign, and Lamont has let him get away with it. Lamont's campaign was given terrible advice and took it - broaden the message. For those who care, on the other side what I think the Lamont campaign should be talking about 24/7.

Bush and Lieberman:

You know, the Democrat Party made a clear statement about the nature of their party when it came to how they dealt with Senator Joe Lieberman. He's a three-term Democrat from Connecticut who supports completing the mission in Iraq. He took a strong, principled stand, and he was purged from the Democrat Party.

. . . There's only one position in the Democratic Party that everybody seems to agree on. If you want to be a Democrat these days, you can be for almost anything, but victory in Iraq is not an option.

Bush supports Lieberman because Lieberman completely supports Bush's Iraq Debacle. You see Bush, Cheney and Lieberman have a plan:

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do.

Joe Biden explains why Joe must go:

MATTHEWS:  So you`re--and this is the last question--you`re expressing at least a hope here that we can begin to resolve the situation in Iraq politically, before we have another presidential election, that you can begin that process right away? After these elections?

BIDEN:  That is my hope.  That is my hope.  I think that is the message--look, the wake up call for Cheney and company is going be November the 7th.  They`re going to find out that the vast majority of the American people do not buy on to this war the way it`s being conducted.

I believe that will free up an awful lot of Republicans, from John Warner, with whom I have not spoken, to other senior Republicans with whom I have spoken, who know there`s a need for a fundamental change in policy.

If we form a joint bipartisan effort, that may put enough pressure on the president to begin to do the right thing.  If that doesn`t work the, Chris, the president will have started and completed the single most significant foreign policy debacle in American history.

Voting for Joe Lieberman is voting for the Bush policy in Iraq. It is voting for stay the course. IT will send the message on November 8 that the people of Connecticut support the Iraq Debacle and want to stay the course. Is THAT the message Connecticut wants to send on November 7?

< Gov't Quits in Gotti Case | TalkLeft: More Than Worth It >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Re: The Story in Connecticut (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:11:50 PM EST
    Most salient passage in the article:

    Joe Lieberman has promised to end the war in Iraq, and it's a message that a substantial number of antiwar Democrats, Republicans, and unaffiliated voters want to hear.  They don't want to believe that the person they voted for three times, Joe Lieberman, introduced the war resolution...They don't want to hear that Lieberman just called for regime change in Iran...

    If the race was a referendum on Iraq, Lieberman would lose. All Ned has to do is use Lieberman's own record against him (and show "the kiss" for the next couple weeks) and he wins.

    Re: The Story in Connecticut (none / 0) (#7)
    by Kevin Hayden on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 04:22:07 AM EST
    1) Connecticut's the most white collar upper-middle class New England state, the most moderate of the bunch.

    When you look at the poll internals, you see the GOP gving 2/3rds of their support for Lieberman. Dem support is around 35%.

    Yes, Lamont could have done better, but it was always a longshot because of the weak GOP candidate. Mostly, Lamont could've done better with Independents.

    But this doesn't really run opposite the national trend. It's just consistent with CT politics where moderates in both parties generally do better.

    The only big question here is why the Indies favored Lieberman.


    Channeling Vallandigham (none / 0) (#2)
    by jarober on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:53:47 PM EST
    Still channeling Vallandigham, I see.  You haven't noticed that violence levels in Iraq were way down, and started spiking as our election got closer?  In much the same way that the Confederates decided to synch attacks north in both 1862 and 1864?  It's called a media op.  The jihadists can't sustain the level they are at right now, but they are doing it for one reason: to win a war in the media that they can't win on the field.

    Thanks so much for being on the wrong side of that.

    Re: Channeling Vallandigham (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:01:02 PM EST

     A Republican has the stupidity to brag on Iraq.

    So now it is B ush, Cheney, Lieberman and jarober.

    66% of the country  has enough sense to realize we are governed by morons.


    Re: The Story in Connecticut (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 11:32:25 PM EST
    jarober's knowledge of the U.S. civil war is poor. by 1864, it was all downhill for the south, merely a matter of time. gettysburg did the deed, and that was july, 1863. grant was in charge in 1864, and he was determined to destroy the confederate army, wherever it was, at whatever cost. the only really stupid move he made was at the siege of petersburg, ordering a frontal assault against nearly impregnable defenses. he didn't make that mistake again.

    grant & sherman were the first truly modern war generals. everything stemmed from their idea of "total" war; destroying the enemy's ability to sustain itself. this might be a viable approach in both afghanistan & iraq, with sufficient troops and good leadership. don't expect that out of the present administration.

    lincoln, thanks to grant's success in the east, was in little danger of not being re-elected in 1864. 1862 were congressional elections, and would have little bearing on the conduct of the war, regardless of lee's strategy, which was a war of attrition. his two major incursions into the north (antietem in 1862, gettysburg in 1863) was an effort to turn the civilian population in the north against the war. both failed, but ultimately resulted in the confederate army's destruction.

    if that's the plan in iraq, then let's hope they continue, with the same results. i doubt it. there are major differences: both groups in iraq have foreign sources to replenish their troops, lee didn't. both have foreign sources of supply, lee didn't, the northern blockade proved quite effective in strangling the south.

    jarober, where do you come up with these inane concepts?

    Yes, but (none / 0) (#5)
    by jamesepowell on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 11:37:41 PM EST
    I agree completely but believe that what we saw and heard as a change in the tone and emphasis of the Lamont campaign's message on Iraq were the result of the Lamont campaign's necessary effort to fit in with the national Democratic Party and particularly the Democratic senators.

    This wasn't just an effort to please or fit with Reid.  Lamont had to avoid the appearance that he was running against his own party.  Given the Democrats' cowardice and lack of direction on Iraq, this was hard to avoid.

    Still, the Beltway and the corporate press/media feel differently about Iraq than the voters of Connecticutt.  Lamont knows that and he knows that he owes his nomination to that fact.  He could have said "I agree with Jack Murtha, Joe Lieberman agrees with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld."

    I don't think it is too late or too little to say that now.  The Democratic Party "leaders" should also realize that if they push hard on Holy Joe, he will collapse.

    Re: Yes, but (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 11:42:22 PM EST
    Not true.

    The NATIONAL Dem message will be to hammer IRaq drom now until Election Day.

    This is the Lamont campaign's fault.