Opinion columns for-and-against Ned Lamont...

[Eric J in MN]

...regarding his August 8, 2006 Democratic primary against Joseph Lieberman.

NY Times editorial: for Lamont


David Brooks' op-ed in NY Times: against Lamont
Mort Kondracke in Jewish World Review: against Lamont
Hartford Courant editorial (paper endorsed Bush in 2004): against Lamont
David S. Broder's op-ed in Washington Post: vaguely against Lamont

Any other opinion columns?

Send a postcard about Lamont to a friend or relative in Connecticut

[CTyankee]

1. When was the Brooks op ed against Lamont in the Times?

I don't recall it, but then my memory is not what it used to be...

[Eric J in MN]

3. The David Brooks "Liberal Inquistion" column was July 9, 2006.

http://donkeyod.blogspot.com/2006/07/liberal-inquisition-another-idiotic.html

[LaPera]

2. Shit, just read this WP article-Lieberman is just starting to "get it"

:dunce: :shrug:
Can you believe it? These Dem's are so fucking out of touch with the people...Lieberman is JUST getting it now...this goes for so many other Dem's in power....I swear, they really believe those manipulating Rove/republican polls and the corporate media...this is a tool of the neocons and it really works...As Rush Limbaugh repeated over & over & over & over that liberals can't make it on radio...and intelligent businessman with degrees and investing savvy believed the Limbaugh/republican hype and are now stunned that liberal radio is kicking ass everywhere....It's true, if the republicans say it over and over again, with support from their right-wing owned media also repeating it over and over again...People will believe it as fact. As Rove keeps telling Dem's, (via the right-wing media bullshit) that Americans are conservative, they do not believe in liberal ideology, etc...The republican think tanks have it down and manipulate the Dem's like little children....Lieberman is just starting to get it and other Dem's still don't have a clue!!!:argh:

GET IT STRAIGHT JOE...IT'S NOT JUST YOUR SUPPORT OF THE WAR!! :grr:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/29/AR2006072900667.html?sub=AR

Lieberman's Eroding Base
Many Democratic Faithful Support a Political Newcomer Rather Than the Senator Who Has NOT Toed Party Line

Traditional left-leaning voters were turned off by Lieberman's support for school vouchers, his criticism of affirmative action and his hawkish foreign policy views. They also resented his conciliatory style in the highly partisan, elbows-out environment of Capitol Hill in recent years.

Lieberman at times appears subdued and weary. He projects little of the cheerful enthusiasm that marked his long-shot presidential bid two years ago. "It's difficult personally," Lieberman said last week of the defections by party veterans such as Stolberg. "I am competing in the most difficult part of the Connecticut electorate for me."

In an editorial published today, the New York Times endorsed Lamont over Lieberman, arguing that the senator had offered the nation a "warped version of bipartisanship" by supporting Bush on national security.

Lieberman is accustomed to the rough and tumble of politics, and can be combative in his own defense, as he showed during a recent debate. But he said he has been jarred by the intensity of Democratic anger toward Bush -- and, by extension, toward him. Liberal bloggers have called Lieberman a "liar" and a "weasel."

"It's not just opposition to Bush," he said. "The hatred is so deep."

That Democratic ire "raises larger questions about our politics," Lieberman added. He thinks it ultimately undermines the effectiveness of government. But he makes no apology for his position on the war, having resolved long ago that he would not "be part of a partisan response."

Other Democrats, including Stolberg, considered challenging Lieberman this year, but Lamont had a crucial advantage. The great-grandson of a JP Morgan chairman, who founded a successful cable-television business, he has already spent $1.5 million of his own money and had raised an additional $1.3 million through June 30.

"I felt all along I would have a challenge," Lieberman quipped. "But I was hoping God would send me a poor one." The senator, however, has raised $7 .2 million for his campaign.

As the Iraq war unfolded and controversies flared over intelligence failures and the commitment of U.S. forces, Democrats such as Stolberg longed for their senator to take a more combative approach with the White House. Bush's embrace of Lieberman the night of the president's 2005 State of the Union address -- a moment that has come to be called "the Kiss" -- is one of the most vivid images of the Connecticut campaign. In a speech last December, Lieberman warned Democrats that "in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

"You can want to be liked by some people, but there are a few you have to write off," Stolberg said. "Joe wants to be loved by the devil, too.":banghead:

[GreenTea]

4. It's very true that......

if a lie is repeated often enough people believe it's the absolute truth. If Americans were not so blindfolded, they could see that bush & co. hold them in low regard believing they are fucking stupid. Of course, I agree they are fucking stupid!!! And I'm furious with Boxer and the Clintons and other dems who are supporting Lieberman. Wonder why Diane F. didn't show in Conn. to boost that slime, Lieberman.

[skeeters2525]

5. Wouldn't it be Nice

To see Democrats putting as much effort into defeating Republicans.

Could we please go a week without hearing any mention of LIEberman or Lamont.

What has Lamont done for you?

Al Gore will be our next nominee. And you will all smear him because he was a friend of LIEberman.

Please get a life. We will soon have a Republican gain in the House and Senate. Because Democrats spend the next hundred days beating off to pictures of Saint Lamont.


ENOUGH ALREADY. WE ALL GET IT. LIEBERMAN IS ADOLPH HITLER. AND LAMONT IS THE REINCARNATION OF JFK.

Still don't understand what great things Lamont has done. Come out against the war. Wow. That is a tough call.


And you think this will turn the Democrats around.

[LaPera]

7. No, you just don't get it...

Unless Lieberman is defeated, it'll be the same old bullshit and Dem's will do as they please and kiss republicans ass, embrace their outrageous policies, knowing there will be NO consequences or repercussions for their actions from the voters.

Dem's like Lieberman believe it's his seat for as long as he's alive and NO Dem should challenge him, no matter what shity republican policy Lieberman pursues.

When will it ever stop if not NOW, you truly don't get it, Lamont is secondary to the real point!!!!

Something has to be done and NOW....I wish the same would happen to my Democratic Senator, (in name only) Feinstein.

Read the post right below me...it is said much better than me, by David Sirota, "How Dare You, You Elitist Insurgents!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/how-dare-you...

[GreenTea]

6. How Dare You, You "Elitist Insurgents!"

David Broder's column today about the Lieberman-Lamont race is one of the most incredible acts of journalistic acrobatics I've seen in a long time. The core of his piece centers around his claim that Lamont is supposedly backed mainly by "elitist insurgents." He offers no explanation for why Lamont is leading in major opinion polls, seeming thus to suggest that the majority of Connecticut Democratic primary voters who say they support Lamont are "elitists." Worse, he never takes a moment to analyze Lieberman's long record shilling for Big Money elitists in Washington, D.C. - elitists like pharmaceutical, insurance and other assorted corporate lobbyists who Lieberman has cast many a vote in favor of.

What Broder is really saying is that he - and many D.C. operatives and pundits - somehow believe it is "elitist" for ordinary voters to decide that a Senate seat is their property, not the property of incumbents and the D.C. columnists who they schmooze with at cocktail parties. Their message is crystal clear: How dare ordinary people think they should have a seat at the political table? Their motivation is also clear: This media/political establishment is deathly afraid that the challenge to Lieberman means they no longer have an iron grip on the political process, and that they no longer get to hand down from Mt. Olympus their deliberately distorted version of what the definition of the "center" is in American politics.

And you know what? They are right - they don't. No matter what happens on August 8th (and I am sure hoping Ned Lamont wins), our message has been sent: we, the vast majority of ordinary Americans, have every right - no, every responsibility - to democratically challenge elected officials when they stop representing us. And now we've shown we can mount serious challenges even to the most insulated, out-of-touch Beltway creatures like Lieberman. That's a victory unto itself - and previews what is sure to be an even more intense small-d democratic resurgence in the coming years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/how-dare-you-you-elitis_b_26103.html

[Eric J in MN]

8. Also, the LA Times publsihed an official editorial agaisnt Lamont. NT

NT

[LaPera]

9. Has the tide changed...looks like Lieberman...

might pull it out and then another six years of a moderate to right-wing.... Senator, masquerading as a Democrat!

Fuck!