Skip to main content

You may not have seen it, but there are a number of folks here that think we are spending too much time on CT-Sen. So strongly do they feel this way that they have repeated this sentiment in 8 million comments and 900 diaries. Most of us remain unpersuaded by their argument. Now some in the other blogs have decided that they too should add their voice to this call. Josh Marshall's guest poster adds his important voice:

Should progressives shift their money and attention from the Connecticut Senate race to more important contests? Absolutely.

. . . Lamont v. Lieberman is a carnival sideshow, a titilating and distracting spectacle. Rove is the carnival barker. So ignore the hoopla and keep moving on down the midway, folks. The main event is still to come, and it will be in places like Montana, Missouri, and Ohio. We've come too far to get side-tracked now.

Heh. Thanks for that insight. So original the thinking. Anyway, this DK person gets worse. I'll you about it on the flip.

Atrios responded with a very strong point:

I always get annoyed when people write something like this:

Should progressives shift their money and attention from the Connecticut Senate race to more important contests? Absolutely.

I'd like more of that advice going to, say, the people who gave money so that Hillary Clinton could have $22 million cash-on-hand. Does Bill Nelson need $12 million to run against Katie Harris? On the House side, does Marty Meehan, who won with 67% of the vote last time, really need to have 5 million bucks in the bank?

This genius guest poster at TPM has a petty response:

Call me crazy, but I think I'll stick with criticizing the circular firing squad that is the Lieberman-Lamont race, rather than focusing on whether everyone has their fair share of bullets, as Atrios seems to want to do.

What a boob. A circular firing squad? He thinks Joe Lieberman is in our circle? Frankly, I am left scartching my head as to why Josh has him guest blogging after that one. Josh's call of course.

He prefers to start a circular firing squad is what is obvious. Presumably he is comfortable with Lieberman. His choice of course. Most of us are not.

Anyway, Atrios delivers the smackdown:

The point is that the amount of money that has come from "progressives" to Lamont is a drop of the bucket in the grand scheme of things and most of it is "found money" and not diverted money. While the Lump of Campaign Cash fallacy is popular it's one of the more annoying ones.

Look, there's always a more important cause and a more worthy candidate. I don't know why someone who thinks that there's too much attention paid to the Lamont/Lieberman race thinks the best use of his/her time is to "stick to critcizing" that attention. If the thing is bad, presumably the meta-thing is worse. Some float above, some dive in.

But, anyway, this race is about more than Lamont now, it's about 3 important House races that Lieberman's going to ratfuck with all of his Republican pals. Attention must be paid by time wasters like myself because too many of the powers that be have apparently forgotten that they do, indeed, have a Lieberman Problem. It's not a circular firing squad, it's the implicit Republican candidate (Lieberman) versus the explicit Democratic one (Lamont). Joe's going to try to win by bringing Republicans to the polls, and when he does it won't be the fault of Lamont supporters, it'll be the fault of Lieberman and Dems who failed to confront him.

I hope TPM Guest Blogger understood that. Personally I sincerely doubt it. I imagine he will revel in his newly created circular firing squad. Nice job there TPM. Way to fight for the Dem team.

Originally posted to Armando on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:40 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes (166+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Johnson, Kimberley, wozzle, Alumbrados, sj, TXdem, pb, Phoenix Woman, lanshark, vivacia, alyosha, teacherken, ctkeith, MikeB, TaraIst, Dump Terry McAuliffe, robla, Pandora, sen bob, Categorically Imperative, msl, sphealey, Lahdee, Sprinkles, stilwell, LynChi, billlaurelMD, chuco35, cotterperson, Beet, ZoBai, xynz, LeftHandedMan, FyodorFish, Ahianne, expatjourno, Creosote, sardonyx, Eternal Hope, tlh lib, Disgusted in St Louis, EvieCZ, Jon B Good, ReneInOregon, mentaldebris, Wee Mama, Shadan7, rhp, ask, sukeyna, buckhorn okie, vmibran, javelina, peraspera, marylrgn, Swordsmith, itskevin, MadEye, splashy, high uintas, georgia10, wader, Mauimom, IM, WeatherDem, kharma, caseynm, BarbinMD, milofischi, DeadB0y, Eddie in ME, brainwave, lezlie, Nina, besieged by bush, goobop, grayslady, niteskolar, EuroDem, sgoldinger, rockhound, RebeccaG, produceus, Eddie Haskell, Liberaljentaps, alizard, lubarsh, BWasikIUgrad, ChiGirl88, fugue, Elwood Dowd, Deward Hastings, Black Max, justmy2, thereisnospoon, iliketodrum, sxwarren, Budlawman, vcmvo2, jonathan94002, davidincleveland, joanneleon, maybeeso in michigan, asskicking annie, The Exalted, Paul Goodman, catleigh, concerned, EconAtheist, John DE, eaglecries, sofia, Overseas, annefrank, Phil S 33, sunbro, paxpdx, wiscmass, LithiumCola, dsteffen, Cory Bantic, Rogneid, JanF, martini, occams hatchet, Nightprowlkitty, Compound F, vigilant meerkat, BlueInARedState, leo joad, tonyahky, martyc35, InsultComicDog, buhdydharma, deha, isis2, quinque, blueoasis, Students for Bhopal, gravitylove, OneCrankyDom, MO Blue, Potus2020, myrealname, ER Doc, Unitary Moonbat, doinaheckuvanutjob, middleagedhousewife, IL clb, midwesterner, katasstrophy, Granny Doc, kidneystones, DBunn, kokoro, malik5470, Cronesense, angelina, camlbacker, possum, Mr Met, Catrina, outofit, Fist of the North Star, SecularProgressive, texaspixie

    TPM's Guest Blogger is really making a postive contribution ot the effort isn't he?

    Everybody dies alone.

    by Armando on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:31:15 PM PDT

  •  A 50 state strategy... (34+ / 0-)

    needs attention paid to all 50 states, and the races going on in them.

    Lieberman has a chance to cause a hatchet job to at least 3 other races around him through his challenge.

    I understand his position, with only a four point loss, and the pubbies liking him, why not run as an indy?

    However, if you are a Democrat, then Joe's actions are a threat, and Lamont needs our help as does Webb, Tester and so many others.

    Bush's lies kill American troops. Any questions?

    by boilerman10 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:35:20 PM PDT

    •  And even if that were wrong (20+ / 0-)

      It is clear we are not going to let up so why beat this dead horse? To start a new circular firing squad of course.

      That will certainly help the cause right?

      Everybody dies alone.

      by Armando on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:37:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't see a circular firing squad at all. (14+ / 0-)

        Lamont is self-funded, though he's up against a machine now.  Funds wise, Lamont may not need financial help in the immediate future.

        What bothers me is the GoOper propaganda squad working on behalf of Lieberman, which strikes me as turncoat treachery on Joe's part.

        We need to address this and point it out.  Just keep watch and call bullshit what it is when Joe tries to pull one over on the public.

        We need to do this on a 50 state basis, as Dean would like.

        If any of this is a circular firing squad, I'd be happy to be shown how that is.  

        Bush's lies kill American troops. Any questions?

        by boilerman10 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:45:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  it is clear (3+ / 0-)

        we are not going to let up.

        •  You (0+ / 0-)

          have never written or commented about a race, any race, in my experience.

          The very definition of a useless tool.

          Everybody dies alone.

          by Armando on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 04:50:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  divide divide divide (3+ / 0-)

            "The very definition of a useless tool."

            Yikes man, that's harsh.  Millions of "useless tools" vote in elections every year.  

            If you want to sniff my butt and call me out too , I'll save you time: I'm a useless tool too.  But I vote.

            Lets have a peacefull discussion, huh?  

          •  First off (0+ / 0-)

            I believe she (he? sorry!) has commented on a variety of races.

            Secondly, it doesn't matter.  That doesn't give you license to be a jerk.

            Thirdly, let's not kid ourselves here.  "Commenting" on races, as we do frequently here on DKos, is hardly the most useful thing that can be done.  A thousand pages of text on a monitor, on their own, will not sway a single vote.

            "You'll get everything you want after the election. But just for the meantime, shut up so that we can win." -- Rep. Peter H. Kostmayer

            by The Strategist on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:54:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  IMO The Race In CT Is Between Lamont (D) And (18+ / 0-)

        Lieberman (R). Lieberman has become by choice a Bush/Cheney/Rove Republican who is by his actions helping the Republicans defeat the CT Democratic House candidates and the Democratic candidate for Governor.

        I will take my focus off this race when Lieberman resigns from the race or when the Democratic leadership decides to come out in full force to defeat the opposition candidate Lieberman and takes strong actions to remove any doubt that he is no longer connected to the Democratic Party.

        If Dkos decided tomorrow not to cover the Lamont/Lieberman do over, I would just spend more time in the CT blogs. People with opposing ideas can rant and rave in every Lamont diary and lecture me that my position is not correct and they will all get the same response. If you want diaries on another race, go write the damn diary. If your diary is good, I'll read it. Stop wasting your time lecturing me or telling me I'm an idiot in this one. That tactic hasn't worked with me for more years than the age of some people on this blog.

        I will continue to donate and work for Claire McCaskill here in MO as well as donate to a few other candidates that have garnered my attention. But regardless of what anyone else says or does I will still donate to Lamont and follow his campaign because Lieberman's antics are bad for the party and for the democratic process.

        •  I absolutely agree (8+ / 0-)

          You are speaking for me on this one.  My laser beam focus on this race will not be diverted, and I can walk and chew gum at the same time.  I go with my gut, and my gut says stay vigilant and understand the shill game going on in Connecticut right now; we will be seeing it repeated again and again.

          It's no disgrace not to be able to run a country nowadays, but it is a disgrace to keep on trying when you know you can't. ~ Will Rogers

          by vigilant meerkat on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 03:29:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  hear hear (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MO Blue

          no one could possibly read every diary and every comment that gets posted here each day.   If this race is not of interest, why not just go read and comment about what does interest you.   The hostility and censure of the 'shut up about liebrerman' crowd has gone Way over the top, imho

      •  It's like television (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peraspera, outofit

        If you don't like it, change the channel, or in this case, read/write another diary.  

    •  The Lamont/lieberman race is not over! (32+ / 0-)

      People who say that we have to move on, focus on other races are crazy.  

      Lamont is behind in CT.  Hopefully he will have another surge past Lieberman, but nothing is sure.

      To move on and focus on other races, AS IF THIS ONE IS FINISHED, is wrong.  

      •  no...not finished (5+ / 0-)

        But the outcome of whether Lamont or Lieberman wins is still a win in the Democrat column.  I know some folks here consider Lieberman a Republican.  But he still has his seniority and should he win, he'll stay in the Dem party.

        The point of moving on is not that the race is a foregone conclusion for Lieberman, but rather the DNC has limited resources and MANY races that are hotly contested AND the DNC needs to win ALL of them in order to run the table and gain back majority control.

        The point that some of us have been making is that to focus resources on CT takes away resources from other races which I would contend are more critical.

        •  Lamont the Democrat who Won in CT=very important (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cotterperson, davidincleveland
        •  Actually that is not certain. (11+ / 0-)

          Lieberman has indicated he will caucus with the dems should he win, but he's been burning a LOT of dem bridges in his run and embracing a LOT of republican support.

          He might be welcomed to the dem caucus and completely lose his seniority.

          Regardless, he is not a dem anymore and really shouldn't be treated like one, regarless of how he SAYS he's going to vote.  

          As far as focus, I find it odd that it's treated as a finite resource.  Our ability to discuss this on Dkos is only limited by Kos's bandwidth.  If it's important to us we should be allowed to discuss it without hassle.  We're not discussing CT to the exclusion of all else.

          And as for Money, Atrios has a point.  Why donate millions of dollars to a shoe-in race like Hillary's when you can donate it to closer (and frankly more critical) races, but no one's calling out Hillary donors as having the wrong priorities.

          •  it's not Joe Lieberman (D) any more (9+ / 0-)

            This is something everybody has to remember, and to keep reminding the voters.  

            Lieberman's not invited to the party any more.  The voters of the Connecticut Democratic party spoke, and they want Ned Lamont to represent him.  

            I don't care if Lieberman says he'll still caucus with the Democratic party.  I voted for the man three times for the Senate and he stopped representing me a few years ago.  If he returned to the Senate as an "independent" Senator, he would continue to damage the cohesion of the party.  He's a loose cannon, and he constantly undermines the progressive wing of the party.

            This comes down ultimately to what it means to be a person who participates in a political party.  For Joe Lieberman, it means he uses us when it's convenient, but it's always about him first.  He's always been unwilling to sacrifice his own ambition for the greater good of the party.  

            What does it mean to be party of a political coalitiion?  In any larger political group, there always has to be give and take.  The more liberal wing of the party has been told for over a decade that we are supposed to be quiet in the general election if our candidate loses in the primary.  The implicit deal with this logic is that if the more conservative candidate loses the primary, he will also step down, because the party is more important than the individual.

            Joe Lieberman has betrayed that trust.  His decision to keep running undermines any cohesion to the party, and makes me feel like a chump for ever voting for him.  

            I literally think a return of Lieberman to the Senate as a "Connecticut for Lieberman" candidate would be a disaster in many ways for the party as a whole.  Lieberman would continue to pontificate in his pompous way on Imus and all the Sunday morning shows.  He would continue to preach his brand of delusional neo-con aggression to the country and the world.  He's a disaster.  It's not worth having him in the caucus.  We'd be better off, if he won the seat, if he simply caucused with the party that was providing the voters for him.  Having a mole in our leadership is killing us.

          •  I'm not saying don't discuss CT... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Certainly not...I think this discussions are crucial.

            But some kossacks have been threatening to withhold financial and volunteer support unless the DNC reprimands or takes away his leadership position or heavily support in time and money.

            And the money I'm talking about isn't going towards Hillary, but rather the key battleground states which the DNC have to run the table in order to take back control.

            •  One person suggested that: me (4+ / 0-)

              And to do so directed at persons who continue to divert the Democratic voter donations they receive to support a proxy-Republican Lieberman campaign.

              if Joe Lie-Man wants money and help, he can get it from his paymasters.

              As for why elected Democrats are diverting Dem voter money to the GOP Lieberman effort, that's less important than sending a message that they need to either stop such sucking up to a pro-Bush suckup, or reap the electoral whirlwind when their own time for primary elections roll around.

              Forget peak oil. Peak beer is coming!

              by cskendrick on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:05:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I seriously question your conclusion, Lieberman (6+ / 0-)

          has said so many nasty things (Waters, etc.) and burned so many bridges that his viability will be questioned.

          How can he stay in the Democratic party after supporting so many of Bush's policies, and running as an independent, after the Democratic voters of CT rejected him?  

          Lieberman is being supported by Bush, the GOP and Republicans.  If you can't see that by defeating him is defeating a Republican, then I can't help you.

          This CT race is not over.  Lieberman winning over Lamont would be a real death blow to our party.  We might as well just all become Republicans.  

          If the CT voters chose Lieberman over Lamont, then I think it will be game, set, match for the other anti-Bush, anti-war candidates.  

          It would be a huge, absolutely huge mistake to let down our guard and focus on other races.  

          This CT race is not won by Lamont and abandoning him at this point would nullify all that has gone before.  

          •  You bring up some good points... (0+ / 0-)

            My crystal ball is broken.  I don't think the Lieberman over Lamont victory would be the death blow of the Democrats.

            It would probably mean a lessening of progressive/liberal influence, but certainly not the death of the party.

            Lieberman may be prepping to switch over to the RNC...I highly doubt that tho unless he wins and the DNC strips him of his seniority and the GOP comes in and gives him seniority and committee chairmanships.

            Just realize that any resources that are put towards Lamont are taking away the ability for the DNC to fund key competitive races that MUST be won...and we're NOT talking about them funding Hillary.  But Ohio, FL, PA, etc...

            •  Lessening of progressive influence (3+ / 0-)

              You say it like that would be a bad thing, when the increase of that influence is why the Republicans are very much on the defensive.

              So, I'm not especially impressed with the quality or legitimacy of observations that anything but further increase in progressive and true moderate influence in the Democratic Party is anything but an unqualified good for Dem electoral prospects in 2006 and beyond.

              What I find most interesting is why you seem compelled to spread the exact opposite message, when the track record of DLC Democrats for the past 14 years is execrable insofar as Congresional politics is concerned.

              Forget peak oil. Peak beer is coming!

              by cskendrick on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:02:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  That only hangs together (5+ / 0-)

          if Lieberman can be taken at his word.

          This is a man who took millions in donations from Democrats, to run as a Democrat, and he lost the Democratic primary.

          Now he is taking millions from Republicans, to run against Democrats.

          I'm interested in whether or not you believe that Joe Lieberman is a man who lives with integrity.

          I don't think he does at all, for the reasons above. He takes and takes from Connecticut, and never gives back, only to the unquestioned, unchecked power of pro-Iraq, anti-New Orleans Republicans.

          Forget peak oil. Peak beer is coming!

          by cskendrick on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:10:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I've made a false assumption (8+ / 0-)

        that GOP votes for Lieberman would return him to the Senate. Then I remember that a lot of old-time conservatives detest Bush for his fiscal policies, stark deviation from the Constitution, and all the waste in Iraq and elsewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them voted for Lamont.

        Bush could push Lamont into office!

        Absolutely not over.

    •  NYT 2006 Election Guide has CT as safe Democrat (4+ / 0-)

      But with Joe 'Quisling' Lieberman currently polling ahead of Lamont.

      What a joke !

  •  I tend to agree. (28+ / 0-)

    I think there is potential harm from letting that race suck up a ton of oxygen (in the form of media coverage) because any news is constantly prefaced with the "rabid left-wing bloggers" tripe.  

    On the other hand, it's as important or more important than ever that Lamont win that Senate seat.  I don't think Josh's guest poster is quite getting that import -- if the race is plastered with all the "rabid flying lamb" shit, then it's critically important that Lamont win and show the press and the country that he's a moderate.

    It's also important that at some point the media and the public realize that this is how a fucking democracy works.  Either you represent your constituents, or you go the hell home.

    Henry: "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
    Republicans: "Give me liberty, or ...not. Just don't let them hurt me."

    by Marc in KS on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:36:49 PM PDT

  •  asdf (35+ / 0-)

    I'll dole out my campaign contributions to whomever the hell I feel like.  And if I'm sick of reading about Lamont/Lieberman, I'll go read something else and not insist that everyone else join me.

  •  Joe stands alone (22+ / 0-)

    against the bullet pocked wall, with only Karl tying the blindfold and Dick lighting him a last cigarette. They won't be their much longer either.

    As far as I can tell, for once all the guns are pointed in the right direction.

  •  Can't possibly be a circular firing squad.... (26+ / 0-)

    Lieberman left our circle a long time ago, if he was ever really in it all.  I kind of picture him sticking one foot inside the circle, with the rest of his body leaning back as far as he could, looking longingly at the "other" circle, wishing he could be part of them.

    The CT race is the whole ball of wax - it is the future of the nation and the future of the Democratic party all rolled into one.  It all about the will of the people and one arrogant, corrupt politician who thinks his power trumps all.

    And by the way, we can multi-task.

    Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

    by landrew on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:39:31 PM PDT

  •  I would like to add this comment (10+ / 0-)

    from a diary last night in which an individual said that he/she was sending money to Alan Schlesinger. I thought that was a stupid idea and said that, but I received this response which has led me to reconsider my callous statement.

    • [new] You are being very disrespectful and shortsighted

    There is a non-linear relationship between money spent and votes received

    Lamont would not get twice as many votes if he spent twice as much money; there is definitely a saturation point; the closer you get to that saturation point, the less effect additional money has.

    However, money donated to a candidate who has very little money can have a significant impact on their vote tally.  

    So, giving Lamont another 10K to add to his multimillion dollar campaign budget will not have as much of an impact as giving that same amount of money to Schlesinger (who is probably struggling to reach 100K).  

    Now, TV ads for Lamont are not going to convince many GOP/conservative voters to vote for him.  But ads for Schlesinger might convince them to vote for Schlesinger instead of Lieberman.

    Look at it from a Game Theory perspective.

    The probability that a dollar given to Schlesinger will be used to successfully convince a GOP/conservative voter to vote for him (instead of Lieberman) is Ps.

    The probability that a dollar given to Lamont will be used to successfully convince an Lieberman voter to vote for him is Pl.

    As more and more money get spent on their respective campaigns, Ps and Pl both shrink because of the saturation that I have mentioned.

    As long as Ps is greater than Pl, then each dollar given to the Schlesinger campaign will have a greater likelihood of subtracting a vote from Lieberman’s tally that it would have of adding a vote to Lamont’s tally.  So, if the Dems are smart they will find a way to contribute money to Schlesinger until Ps shrinks to about Pl.  Once Ps is nearly the same level as Pl, then they stop contributing.

    This is a very simplified scenario, you also need to take into account the probability that a dollar given to Schlesinger will result in a vote taken from Lamont and given to Schlesinger (call it Pls).    So you want to use P = Ps-Pls, instead of Ps in the game theory weighting.  Then you stop contributing to Schlesinger when P shrinks to about Pl

    So the question isn’t whether or not to contribute to Schlesinger, the question is how much to contribute: coming up with some kind of estimation of Pl, Ps and Pls that take into account the asymptotic saturation effect.

    With some thinking and research to estimate the probabilities that I have outlined, this becomes a very intelligent strategy.  Calling it stupid is one of the most facile statements I have ever read.

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy, that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

    by iliketodrum on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:40:48 PM PDT

    •  Two problems with this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      First, the one you pointed out, which is that there is the amount of votes which are taken away from Lamont.  At some point, mathematically (though not really), all the money ends up with a a 3-way split, which doesn't help Lamont either.

      The second problem is that we have been decrying the Greens getting help and money from the Repubs in a lame attempt to spin the race against the Democrat.  If we start doing the same thing, it becomes harder to distinguish ourselves from the Repubs, and then the moderates and undecided voters will either chose not to come out, or not vote for our guy.  The ends don't justify the means, no matter what Machiavelli thought.

  •  Let's stop talking about the CT-Sen race.. (28+ / 0-)

    Because, the three months before the election is the perfect time to back off.

    It's strategic brilliance, they'll never see it coming.

  •  I read Atrios (7+ / 0-)
    and agreed with that post.  Netroots is great, but it isn't where the cash cows are.  The cash cows are corporations.....and I have to wonder if politicians are willing to divert money corporations gave them to elect someone else.

    We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.

    by Fabian on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:42:00 PM PDT

  •  This election is important, but at some point (5+ / 0-)

    Lamont is going to have to show that he is not a creation of bloggers and is going to have to win it himself. If he can show his independence, it can do nothing but add to the strength of his movement or candidacy and then a lot of other Democrats will be taken more seriously because of it.  He should be able to win it on his own merit, and Connecticut volunteers.  All the attention focused on the CT race is taking attention away from a whole bunch of potential Liebermans, or worse yet Santoriums.  In the run up, there was a major place for blogs.  At this point, I am not sure that the benefit for him is still there.

    "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

    by hopscotch1997 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:42:07 PM PDT

    •  Sure (6+ / 0-)

      But we are not writing aboutn Lamont, at least I am not, we are driving message on Lieberman.

      If you think the blog focus had nothing to do with the NYTimes article today then you are not being serious.

      Everybody dies alone.

      by Armando on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:44:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Didn't he already do that... (14+ / 0-) defeating Lieberman by a clear margin in the primary?  Bloggers didn't do that -- voters did.

      "...the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart." -- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

      by Roddy McCorley on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:10:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think it is perceived that way by the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Miss Devore

        public.  It's perceived that he was the bloggers candidate, and would not have won otherwise.

        "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

        by hopscotch1997 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:16:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  it wasn't that clear of a margin... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        and that was among the party loyalist.  Joe's 12 point lead show's that he still has some clout with the CT electorate.

        •  It shows he has unwavering support from CT Pubs. (5+ / 0-)

          I'd like to know why you are campaign for a pro-Bush, pro-GOP Lieberman candidacy.

          Forget peak oil. Peak beer is coming!

          by cskendrick on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:05:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  not campaigning... (0+ / 0-)

            I will admit that I do like Lieberman, although I don't always agree with his viewpoints.

            My main thesis of my arguments is that can the Dems really afford to pour money into the CT senate race at the expense of other crucial races.

            Seems that most people around here want the Dems to put those resources so that Lamont can win.  Fine...that's certainly their perogative to try and pressure Dems to do that.

            I am saying there is a chance that strategy will backfire...but we can wait to see how the cards fall in November.

            If the Dems do pour a portion of their limited funds into this race and fall short of the results they need in their other key battleground elections...this website will not be a happy place.

            •  Allocation of scarce campaign resources (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Republicans are working very hard to get what some call a Democrat elected, that someone being the loser from the Democratic primary.

              Who is wasting money in Connecticut, again?

              Forget peak oil. Peak beer is coming!

              by cskendrick on Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 05:07:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not sure if RNC is really wasting their money... (0+ / 0-)

                The state RNC party is spending their money on Lieberman rather than their own loser candidate.  The CT state Republican party is getting more bang for their buck in that way.

                This is a state that the RNC wasn't going to waste any time on because it was sewn up for the Democrats.  So for them to make this race competitive draws down resources from the Dems.  Plus, it puts the 3 house CT races up for grabs as well if Lieberman's run causes any of those potential seats to go to the GOP.

                GOP loses nothing by propping up Lieberman, in a race that was a slam dunk for the DNC.

                You may not see it that way...maybe the DNC has tons of money to throw around...I don't think so.  And I'm not talking about local folks...if the blogosphere and CT liberals/progressives want to support Lamont, that's all fine and dandy.

                My point was how much will the DNC and national players be willing to throw into the race will be the crucial issue.  I think Hillary's tepid endorsement and measly $5k to Lamont has me thinking that she is in alignment with my position.

                Lieberman has a base of support to draw much that will be siphoned off because the support was for strict party affiliation is something I just don't know right now.  I would bet a large proportion of his base is loyal to Joe as a candidate.

                Lamont will have to pony up another couple million dollars again for the fall election...not sure if he's willing to do that after spending $2million of his own bucks to just win the primary.  I don't think he expected (until towards the end of the primary when he was surging) that Joe would stay in the race...  I'm sure the blogosphere will come to his rescue and pony up dollars.  But again, these are dollars that could have been spent elsewhere.

                The impact of Joe staying in the race won't be known until mid-November.  I think liberals/progressives and other Democrats may fall in line with your view though because many are incensed that Joe would stay in the race and pour time, energy and resources into the CT senate race.

                That will be seen as a positive by the RNC.  It's essentially Demcrats fighting amongst themselves (again).  I know that many folks here don't consider Lieberman a Dem...but the net result is the same...

          •  hungry. any meal ideas? (0+ / 0-)
        •  Considering it was a record turnout for a primary (3+ / 0-)

          I would say that the margin was very significant.

          Insert Meaningful Signature Less Than 160 Characters Here.

          by lightfoot on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 06:16:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Well (14+ / 0-)

    it's not that I think no or a tiny amount of attention should go to CT. It's a big deal, in both a real, immediate sense and in a longterm, more symbolic one.

    It's that we've got to be able to multitask. There are a heap of other races going on in the country that could be won or at very least be competetive with more attention and money. I've seen some improvement here the last week or so, but I'd really like to see a lot of house races get more attention, and soon -- we've got a lot of ground on which we need to fight.

    Atrios's argument -- that the bitching about the focus  given is even less productive than the focus itself -- just strikes me as both a truism and not terribly helpful itself -- it's basically meta-meta-commentary. I think most of us would rather not be bitching, but we see a problem that we'd like to see addressed.

    And again, I think it's getting better. I just really want more focus on other races, even while acknowledging the importance of the CT race.

    I guess I agree very much with kid oakland about using blogpower to focus attention and money locally where it's needed.

    •  Atrios's point is excellent (3+ / 0-)

      and your commen ton it makes no sense to me.

      Atrios is saying that they should write about any damn SUBSTANTIVE point they want to and you won't see us bitching.

      I'l make a deal woith you, don't bitch about what substantive issues we are writing about and we won't bitch about your choices either.

      To compare the two strains here as you do is sophistry at best.

      Everybody dies alone.

      by Armando on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:48:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Heh (6+ / 0-)

        well, it's not a major point, so I'm not going to verbally wrestle over it.

        But at some point, when you're complaining about other people complaining because complaining is useless, yeah, I'm going to call it silly and go do something else with my time. Your argument is that you can post whatever you want, which will be CT -- and you're right -- and that everybody else, if they want different focus, can post whatever they want -- and I agree with you there, too. But if you start complaining too much about how other people are complaining, then yeah, it's going to become a circular fire squad.

        To be clear -- we largely agree, though I have some minor (and somewhat alleviated now) concerns about use of front page space. I just think, since you're advising anybody with a problem to get over it and and do their own thing, y'all (including Atrios) would be well advised to do the same.

    •  And speaking of kid oakland (5+ / 0-)

      he's got a diary about a different race, and about local blogging, up right now.

      I fully expect that everybody who recommended this diary to the list should go read that one and discuss other races/localler blogs if you'd really rather discourage meta-bitching. Focus on Lieberman all you'd like, it's important, but go look at what other people are doing about other also-important races, too. We've got to work on multiple levels.

  •  Of course we should focus on Lieberman (8+ / 0-)

    for all the reasons Atrios, Gilliard etc have stated. He's a symbol of Republican perfidy, as well as a symbol of DLC ineptitude.

    Atrios already accurately points out that it's not a zero sum game. We use beat Joementum...and every other Republican like him that we can.

    Can't resist stating that I rarely read TPM because well, I don't think it's a very smart site and it tends to be exceedingly apologetic for those who are responsible for Democartic losses over the last ten-fifteen years. Hey, Joshua Michael Marshall can have a guest pig on for all I care, but it doesn't mean Joshu Michael Marshall is anything but another Beltway type.

  •  De facto Republican candidate Lieberman. (7+ / 0-)

    I believe it is time for a roll call on leadership.  Clark.  Richardson.  Kerry.  Edwards.  All have called on Joe to drop out and respect the will of Connecticut Democrats.  Any other '08 potential candidates done so?

  •  Hey TPM: Lieberman and SS, not perfect together (11+ / 0-)

    This is what is bugging me about TPM: Josh was such a strong advocate of social security.  Last year, Lieberman was as non-committal as some Republicans about his support of the program.  Let's just put aside his unquestioning acceptance of everything neo-con for a moment and think about that.  Joe was ready to ditch SS for private accounts last year.  What kind of promise did Rove et al extract from Joe in order to get the GOP campaign machine behind his independent run?  I'll betcha it was his committment to SS.  Why don't we pin Joe down on that issue?  I'll bet those Democratic little old ladies in CT who still support Joe will want to know if he will support their social security habit.  Wouldn't you want to know if you were an older, poorer wonam on a fixed income, the same voters that went for Joe in the primary?  I know I'd be curious.  
    But there goes TPM, tsk-tsking us about obsessing over CT.  Seems to me that squashing Joe in the polls is the most important thing we can do right now.  Discrediting him as quickly as possible is the best way to clear the debris for the Dems running in Novemeber.  If TPM is not part of the solution, I'm sure they don't have to pay any attention to us.  BTW, where was Josh et al during YearlyKos?  Much as I like him, he can get a bit uppity at times for my tastes.  

    -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

    by goldberry on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:45:43 PM PDT

    •  Josh also noted that he wasn't paying attention (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to this race, and didn't particularly care about it, and thinks Joe is a good guy, for what that's worth.  All of that was prior to Lamont's win.

      •  Josh also posted this from Mark Schmitt (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FyodorFish, Sam I Am

        A few late thoughts from Mark Schmitt on Connecticut and the Lieberdammerung.

        Balz’s unsurprising argument is that if Lieberman loses, it will increase the importance of the Iraq War in the 2008 Democratic primaries...

        ...This is why I’ve never been worried in the past about the “split” on Iraq among Democrats. I thought that by the time we got within sight of the 2008 primaries, either something dramatic would have happened to change things, or it would become completely obvious to everyone that withdrawal on a timetable was the only option.


        Also, I’m really tired of the Vietnam/Democrats analogy, in which the entire political history of Vietnam is reduced to McGovern’s loss in 1972. The real reason the Vietnam War divided and discredited Democrats and splintered the liberal consensus was because - let’s not be afraid to admit it -- Democrats started that war. Opposition to the war didn’t unify or define the party, it divided it.


        My only point is that the Vietnam analogy is as flawed as the Munich analogy because Vietnam broke up the Democratic coalition for particular reasons, because Dems bore first responsibility for the war. To say that "Dems were identified with the anti-war movement and therefore lost, therefore Dems should avoid the anti-war movement today" is flawed both in its premise and its conclusion.

        <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

        by bronte17 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 04:15:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well, to be fair, it's JMM's guest poster, (0+ / 0-)

      not JMM himself. I don't know how much JMM vets his guests' posts or expects coherence from them.

  •  This race is important (11+ / 0-)

    It's an opportunity for us to watch and analyze the Democratic leadership to see what their priorities are.  Are they with us working for change, and to stop the Republicans?  Or are they working merely to protect the membership of their little club while paying lip service to the idea of change?

    Very little that I have seen so far from the Democratic leadership leads me to believe the former.

    Lamont is one of the best and strongest candidates I've ever seen, and he deserves the full support of the Democratic Party leadership.  We'll never get candidates like Lamont to run again if he gets hung out to dry, as I really fear will happen.  If that does happen, I'm going to have to start exploring my third party options because THAT will be the point where I conclude that no meaningful change is possible via the Democratic Party.

    Filleann an feall ar an bhfeallaire. The treachery returns to the betrayer. A crushing primary defeat for every Vichy Democrat who enables Bush.

    by asskicking annie on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:46:17 PM PDT

    •  Democratic Social Club? (5+ / 0-)

      Are they with us working for change, and to stop the Republicans?  Or are they working merely to protect the membership of their little club while paying lip service to the idea of change?

      This is what pisses me off more than Lieberman himself. Lieberman acts as if he is owed the Senate seat because... well, just because. Many of his DemSen colleagues AGREE with that logic.

      F-the Dem primary. Who cares what the people think! Something is SERIOUSLY wrong!

      Edward R. Murrow:We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.

      by digital drano on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 04:24:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Would you really rather see (0+ / 0-)

      the DSCC spend money on Lamont than, say, Tester?  Or Brown?

      "You'll get everything you want after the election. But just for the meantime, shut up so that we can win." -- Rep. Peter H. Kostmayer

      by The Strategist on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 06:07:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  All three. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peraspera, outofit

        Although there is clearly more at stake in CT.

        If Lieberman is successful, we may see the floodgates open and the Repubs start aggressively courting all the rest of the Democratic quislings -- Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Ken Salazar, etc.  I'm already pretty certain Salazar will jump to the Repubs eventually.  

        Keeping people like Lieberman in the Senate is just another new and innovative strategy for the Repubs to continue to hold absolute power and evade accountability.

        Filleann an feall ar an bhfeallaire. The treachery returns to the betrayer. A crushing primary defeat for every Vichy Democrat who enables Bush.

        by asskicking annie on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 06:38:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you (20+ / 0-)

    I am always annoyed by people telling me what race I should ignore, and whats more important, but the recent rash of comments telling me that the Lieberman/Lamont race is unimportant are really starting to piss me off.
    This is the single most high profile race for those of us who want to change the culture in Washington, and now that we have fired the first shot it is critical that we keep fighting to the end.
    I certainly excuse those in other states who wish to give their money to local races. I don't have infinite money and time either and I'll likely be spending most of it on the frighteningly close House race in Vt., where I live. But you will never catch me telling folks to ignore any race in favor of another.
    It's fine to make us aware of other races and ask for our help, but please folks, stop telling us that we shouldn't be interested in Ct. This is a big deal.

  •  In fairness (6+ / 0-)

    It's not like Josh has posted much about Lamont. He barely even covered the race on the day of the primary.

    Speaking as a scientist, etc.
    12,390+ days without shooting anybody in the face.

    by abw on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:48:46 PM PDT

  •  good diary...rec (5+ / 0-)

    Ilove the line "if the thing is bad, the metathing is worse".  That's about says it all.

  •  Lieberman's CIRCLE is horrible neocons (18+ / 0-)

    Joe Lieberman's circle

    Committee on the Present Danger: Honorary Co-chair

    Foundation for the Defense of Democracies: Distinguished Adviser

    American Council of Trustees and Alumni: Cofounder

    Committee for the Liberation of Iraq: Former Co-chair

    Other members of their board of directors?

    Jeane Kirkpatric
    William Kristol

    Robert Kagan

    Richard Perle
    James Woolsey
    Eliot A. Cohen
    Frank Gaffney
    Charles Krauthammer
    Gary Bauer
    Newt Gingrich

    Steve Forbes

    Jack Kemp
    Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
    George Shultz

    Lynne Cheney

    William Bennett

    Atrios should have pointed that out.

    Given a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, Americans will choose the real Republican every time - Harry Truman

    by tiggers thotful spot on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:51:41 PM PDT

    •  wow (6+ / 0-)

      know them by the people they choose to hang with, hey?

      what a list ...

      how to get more people to care about "liberal" democrats' foreign policy weaknesses?

      an ambulance can only go so fast - neil young

      by mightymouse on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:19:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yay Liebermann... Lynne Cheney Loave ya... smooch (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cory Bantic

      Lieberman also teamed up with Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, in 1995 to set up the private American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), which in 2000 gave $3.4 million to colleges and universities. While its various boards and advisory committees include elites from a diverse array of backgrounds, it is populated with a number of the usual neoconservative-aligned suspects, like Irving Kristol, Martin Peretz (New Republic magazine), Philip Merrill (who passed away in early 2006), William Bennett, Donald Kagan, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Hillel Fradkin, and Leon Kass. According to its mission statement, ACTA “is the only national organization that is dedicated to working with alumni, donors, trustees, and education leaders across the country to support liberal arts education, uphold high academic standards, safeguard the free exchange of ideas on campus, and ensure that the next generation receives a philosophically balanced, open-minded, high-quality education at an affordable price.”

      •  ACTA (0+ / 0-)

        wrote a letter after 9/11 accusing America's university professors of disloyalty (essentially).

        Lieberman disavowed that letter and claimed not to have been a co-author of it (to his very tiny credit...)

        Given a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, Americans will choose the real Republican every time - Harry Truman

        by tiggers thotful spot on Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 09:41:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  50 states (9+ / 0-)

    No, we can't let up in Connecticut.  Or Missouri.  Or Montana, Pennsylvania, or.... any and all of the important races.

    It would be woefully stupid to let CT slip through Lamont's fingers just as it would be to let any of the states with important senate races fall under our radar.

    There is no reason to pull resources from one to augment another.  What we must do is make sure we have fully funded, fully supported candidates in each of these races.

    The most un-American thing you can say is, "You can't say that." -G. Keillo

    by Eddie Haskell on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:52:33 PM PDT

    •  CT is almost certainly lost, so lets focus... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Naturegal, Eddie Haskell, khereva

      elsewhere, yah?

      The meme playing out in the media right now is that the Dem's are unorganized, uncoordinated, and fighting amongst themselves... you may think that that is good, and worthy, and will lead to something else...

      But, at least for this election cycle, it reduces our ability to spread our message, and our attention to other candidates.

      •  freepers r creating + perpetuatin this meme (4+ / 0-)
      •  'almost certainly lost' (7+ / 0-)

        Thankfully, I'm not in charge of telling everyone who they should give their time, money, and energy to,  'cause I don't have the super sekrit mid-term Magic 8 Ball.  I'd make a lousy purse-holder strategist.

        But I do think that if there's a race that people (any people, singular or plural) feel strongly about enough to write, talk, and walk the route, then to discourage anyone from following through on that is foolish.  If the Lamont/Lieberman race piques the interest of one voter enough so that he/she sits up and pays attention to who's out there with something to say, talks about it, reads about it, then I'm glad that that person had a chance to engage.  When you see that there is an actual real-life alternative out there, you feel like you have more at stake and that your voice means more.  And then you get to the old Breck commercial:  and then she told two friends, and she told two friends, and she told friends...  

        Waking an electorate, regardless of who wins the short-term, can only be good.

        jotter's Lists of High Impact Diaries: daily and weekly archives (bring your own bendy straws)

        by sele on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:45:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We need to help split the Republican vote (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        while getting out Ned's common interest, leadership messages (e.g., as editorialized in the WSJ recently).

        Ned should alter his few attack ads, marginalizing Joe at all times.  While targeting policy messages against the Republican party in general, put out constant attacks on Joe by ending EVERY SINGLE Lamont policy ad with a meme which questions what Joe Lieberman would do on that issue, noting that nobody really knows.

        Seriously, we probably only need to show Republican voters that Joe still promises to be a Democrat, and keep pumping the point of nobody knowing where he stands on anything except the wrong side of Iraq.

        A simple ad showing him waffle on Iraq next to ihs saying that Iraq is a mandatory, any-length fight that is making everyone happy . . . and the uncertainty ramps up in Republican minds even more.

        Heck, I think Ned should put out ads asking who Republicans want to vote for . . . a Dem who makes you guess if his love for President Bush's disastrous war and other failing policies will outweigh his stated Democratic membership, or a Republican who is only a Republican.

        Meanwhile, Ned's planks are solid as hardwood to Dems and even moderate Republicans.  This is doable.

        So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way.

        by wader on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 09:29:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I disagree with anyone that believes (14+ / 0-)

    in too much attention to Lieberman-Lamont. This has been an important,  a vital moment in the course of events in which Democrats take back this country. It is a moment where those of us in the 'citizen media' supported a candidate when the traditional media made it seem as if our support was doom, that we were unproven, that we were narcissistically gazing upon ourselves at YearlyKos and here within this community.

    It is vital that above and well beyond us, the grassroots of CT spoke. It is huge. This is beyond a single race. This has transcended into an epic which has even the vice president of the United States saying that this win helped Al-Qaeda types. This win has a CNN commentator repeating the mantra and then apologizing for his comment.

    This race has Democrats having to choose a side, between the incumbent and DC or our party.

    No one that continues to report and analyze CT is allowing our efforts, funds or energies to be vacuumed into this vortex without contributing to anything else around us. I just believe in how significant it is.

    Come on. This race has individuals in Washington putting us in bed with Al-Qaeda. Every vile, stupid thing they say can be used in television and radio ads to secure wins for all candidates leading up to November. And all of this can be done while still stumping, calling, door knocking and supporting the candidates in our district and state.

    Blah, blah, blah. Pretend that was something profound and that I said it.

    by niteskolar on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:54:15 PM PDT

  •  Joe Lieberman is the Republican candidate. (20+ / 0-)


    That is his anchor.  And his hope.  

    He wins if we fail to place that anchor firmly around his neck.  He loses if we succeed.

    If we're dumb. Then God is dumb. And maybe a little ugly on the side.

    by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 01:59:01 PM PDT

  •  Never had a problem with 'DK' (9+ / 0-)

    until today.  I was also flabbergasted at what this "guest blogger" had to say.  Simply doesn't make any sense.  A real clinker, in all senses of the word.

    I think the Lamont/Lieberman race should be covered exactly like all the other Democratic/Republican races (and yes, I now view Lieberman as a Republican, regardless of his promises of "caucusing with the Dems" -- as you point out, Armando, there are 3 Dem seats threatened by Lieberman in this race).  It's the whole "meta" thing that is pointless.  I have no difficulty at all following all of the races going on, and here at Daily Kos (especially with Kid Oakland's excellent diaries on the subject) I am getting more interested in all the campaigns, both local and national, not less.

    Lamont's race is no less important than any other.  I just don't understand all the squawking about this.

    Hodes, Sestak, Webb, Laesch, Lampson, all the others, bring 'em on the pages of Daily Kos, I'll read each and every diary on the subject to educate myself about the Democrats who are stepping up to the plate.  I love 'em all.

  •  It's an honesty issue. (5+ / 0-)

    I wonder how many of these people really support Lieberman. If they do, then let them come out and say it and give us one positive reason why we should support Lieberman. If there are other races that you are interested in, then write about them. Nobody's saying you can't write about issues of importance to you.

  •  i disagree (0+ / 0-)

    rove is not the carnival barker.

    this is not the only race getting any attention, btw.  other races are being tracked on the front page.

    but it is the only race we really give a damn about.  those diaries on the front page aren't as well trafficked.

    we're hot damn fired up about CT.

    and, according to atrios, it's ALWAYS someone else's fault.

  •  my two cents (6+ / 0-)

    First and foremost: I don't buy the idea that our collective attention span is so weak and so narrow that we can't talk about Lamont, and Webb, and Tester, and other local races.

    It's not really about money, Lamont has said he's not going to be outspent and he's got more money than Lieberman. To the extent that it is about money, Lieberman is the one who is now sucking up GOP cash.

    But the more we talk about about this race, the more we keep attention on the war, the more we keep the national election focused on Bush. The more the mainstream media whines about "angry bloggers", the more they also have to talk about what we (and sixty-plus per cent of the country) are angry about: The war and Bush's incompetence>>Katrina, Osama been Forgotten. Chris Shays, I gather, has now decided he's against the war. If Diane Farrell is smart, she'll manage to exploit both his flip flop, his past rubber stamp votes, his loyalty to the Republican Party. This is a trend around the country. We (unfortunately) may not be able to get rid of all of the wackadoos and weaklings, but we can get rid of some of them, and we can force them all to fight.

  •  Thanks for making a rec. listed diary out of my (3+ / 0-)

    conversation with FleetAdmiralNJ, Armando.  I hope you're proud of yourself.

    Truth is, I'm just jealous that you thought of doing it first.

  •  Here here! (12+ / 0-)

    I live in Connecticut but I can tell you folks in every state: This is about the very soul of the Democratic party, Joe is just the symptom. It is about all of the enablers in the Democratic party who refuse to stand up, it is about all of the people in the party who are the geishas of the Republicans. It is about a Senator who no longer hides the help from Karl Rove and still calls himself a Democrat. If a true Democrat can't win here, I have doubts for Kansas, Texas etc. This is a test for Rove: Can he use his nasty devisive politics and smear tactics even between "Democrats".
    Joe is dangerous and he is selfish. So too are the Mark Pryer's out there who put a personal friendship ahead of the party.
    Do all you can for the other races. It's such bullshit we are "spending too much time" on this. Like any other diary here, if it's a waste to you, don't read it. God knows we Connecticut residents read a hell of a lot of Hackett/Mean Jean, Francine Busby diaries. In fact, Ohio got the lion's share of diaries for many months.
    I just strikes me as funny: all of the people who are bitching could be doing something in the real world. I live in Connecticut, what's your excuse. Don't write a whiny diary, go help the candidate of your choice.
    Oh and another reminder: What is in the diaries at Kos is really and truly not a great reflection of what people are thinking in the real world. We can do great things and have but when we lapse into this meta-bullshit, it's mental masturbation.

    Demokratie: ein bei Wahlen immer wieder auftauchender Begriff

    by gladkov on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:21:18 PM PDT

  •  more attention to more races please... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Naturegal, StupidAsshole

    Sadly, Lieberman will probably win.  And unless we focus on other races, so too will Burns, Allen, and the rest.  Not only that but the media, who reads this site and takes it as important, will continue to focus on this internecine fighting, rather than talking about Allen and Webb, Burns and Tester, and so on.

    Oh, and Armando... you can try telling us not to stop telling others what to write about.  But we will continue to voice opposition to the DailyJoe focus of this site.

    •  How do you know this,,,, (12+ / 0-)

      "Sadly, Lieberman will probably win."

      By your logic, Lamont's August 8th never happened since pre-primary polls once showed Lamont down 55 - 19 (or something like that).  Should we have stopped then?  Should we have walked away?  If we had, we would have walked away from the opportunity of a lifetime.  It would be equally irresponsible to walk away now.

      And when we fight Leiberman, WE ARE NOT FIGHTING ANOTHER DEMOCRAT.  At best, we are fighting a "Connecticut for Leiberman".  In reality, we are fighting a Republican.

      This is not a fight to quit just because the going got tough.  This is a fight to win.

      Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

      by landrew on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:38:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  in reality... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        StupidAsshole, The Strategist

        In reality, we are fighting someone who will caucus with the Dems.  Yes he stands for many bad things and does many bad things and is despicable.

        But when you see the chances of Lamont winning compared to, say, Tester winning... or Webb winning.  Well, those races, against hardcore actual GOP members, are far more important and likely of winning.  Wouldn't it be preferable to stop Allen in his tracks before 08, rather than stopping Lieberman?

        Think: this site criticizes Sierra Club and NARAL for endorsing left-leaning GOPers like Chafee... "all for the party" thinking, you know?  So why don't we take our own advice, and focus just a leeeeeeetttttle bit more on races where we are fighting actual GOPers who will actually caucus with actual GOP leaders?

        •  A Lieberman win is worse than a Republican one (5+ / 0-)

          Because it not only deprives us of a Democratic seat, it actively aids the Republicans.

          Lieberman brings nothing to the (Democratic) party, except Karl Rove-- and he ain't on our side.

          Bring the Troops Home. Restore Constitutional Government. Take Back Your Nation.

          by khereva on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:46:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Again, how do you know this..... (6+ / 0-)

          "In reality, we are fighting someone who will caucus with the Dems."  Because Joe says so? Show me the signed contract with appropriate penalties if he defaults.  Joe will owe any re-election to the Republicans, and like the devil, they will demand payment.

          In addition, do you really think that if people here write about the CT senate race, Tester will lose? Or Webb?  Do you think we have the power to make people in Montana turn away from voting because we talk about Leiberman?  We don't have that power.

          We do have the power to shift the media narrative, and influence the Democratic party establishment.  By keeping the focus on Leiberman, we can hopefully force the Dems to act and take care of Leiberman once and for all, by stripping him of his committee seats now.  Then Leiberman can turn to the Republicans once and for all, lose in November, and the CT senate seat can be turn blue - true blue.

          Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

          by landrew on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 03:00:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  plays in montana? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jimsaco, StupidAsshole, Sam I Am

            montana is a pretty conservative state.  so is virginia.  and so are many other states.

            do you want the lieberman-lamont messaging and meme to be nationalized?  okay, fair enough.  but do you think that meme and message will be effective in those reddish states?

            by continuing this squabble, joe lurches rightward and he very capably answers, brutally and unfairly labelling the dems as outoftouch and liberal.  when that message is amplified and relayed across the country, well, do you think that helps or hurts other races?  does that help tester?  

            as unfair as it is, do you think that lieberman's racist highlight of lamont+sharpton+waters is going to be a good thing for webb?  do you think it is going to be a good thing when burns is able to do a little 2+2 linking back to new england internecine dem fighting?

            •  Montana elected a (7+ / 0-)

              Democratic governor last cycle over an absolutely horrendously red republican incumbent.  Montanans recently rejected bills that would have allowed businesses to polute their ground water with more heavy metals (the bill was being sold as one that would bring revenues to the state:  something the state badly needs).
              Yeah, I do think it plays well in reddish states.  
              Montana's got one dem, one rep senator.  

              I gotta share this.
              Imagine my shock 2 days ago when a volunteer for a Dem candidate, Ross Romero, for a local senate seat came knocking on my door.  I took the literature, opened it and found they guy campaigning on (1) energy independence (alternative forms, not oil), (2) strengthening higher ed, (3) "encouraging progressive economic development" (4) a cut back on the "message bills," (5) open government (6) protecting environment and communities, (7) affordable, accessible, quality health care.

              OK, now the kicker:  I live in Utah.  I have never, ever seen a Democratic candidate for anything be so openly democratic in this state in the last 35 or so years I've lived here.  Usually, Democrats try to wrap themselves up as Republicans in disguise.  I've never, until this year, even been able to find the word "Democrat" with the little donkey on the lit or on a yard sign without having to search like Nancy Drew.  The word "progressive" on campaign lit?!?  Blew me away.
              We'll see how he does, but my point is, this is a major, major, welcome harbinger.

              Woe to you, O land whose king is a child -- Ecclesiastes 10:16

              by middleagedhousewife on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 03:42:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  of course it won't help in Montana, or VA, or OH, (0+ / 0-)

              or PA.

              But it seems for most of the people here, that's beside the point.

              They have decided that, if they wake up on Wednesday November 8th to find Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader, and Man On Dog as Majority Whip, they are Totally Cool with that, as long as Joe Lieberman loses to Ned Lamont.

              A fighting chance to take one or both houses of Congress, and they decide the highest priority is to Purge Joe Lieberman.

              And now that strategy cannot even be questioned.  We have to shut up about it, apparently.  While they move on to purge bloggers on other websites, too.  

              Josh's call, of course.

              Have some Havarti!

              by jimsaco on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 04:14:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  And that worries me (10+ / 0-)

      While we've been obsessing on the Lieberman/Lamont race, Burns has cut Tester's lead, Santorum has cut Casey's lead, and if it wasn't for Allen's racism, Webb would still be a footnote.

      And those are just the Senate races that we should win.

      And it's not just about money. It's about discussing the candidates, the differences between them, hearing from the grassroots in that state, drumming up volunteers for those campaigns, and getting the media to focus on other races as well.

      And before anyone flames me, I have written diaries on the races that are important to me -- mainly Cardin/Steele and McNerney/Pombo.

      Iraq was not about 9/11. And bin Laden is still free.

      by Naturegal on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:40:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  right on! (6+ / 0-) predicts Burns to win, and sees Santorum odds at about even to win.  This is terrible, terrible news!

        We can sit and fiddle against Joe while the GOP portrays this infighting to the rest of the country as weakness and lack of conviction and so on... and all the while losing our message with lost opportunities in PA, MO, MT, VA, WA...

        This site almost single-handedly elevated the Joe race into its primary focus.  It did so wonderfully and efficiently.

        But it is now time for all of us to take a larger look and to see that every diary about Joe is a lost opportunity to focus on the other races.  And every Joe diary that the media reads is one more reason for the media to focus less on the other races, less on our cohesive powerful voices, and more on internecine fighting.

        Let's not make the same mistake we did in 2000, where the perfect became the enemy of the good.  

      •  Some of it is about money, and (5+ / 0-)

        Casey could use some more of it.  Some focus on that would be good, just like it benefited Lamont in the primary.  

        Santorum is running nonstop ads on TV, while Casey is running non stop nothing.  The reason is that Santorum has much more money than Casey,and Casey is forced to push his campaign closer to November.  It is a dangerous situation.

        "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

        by hopscotch1997 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:54:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  focus on casey (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jimsaco, Naturegal, StupidAsshole

          so to those who say that we can do everything at once, just think how helpful it would be, on a national front, if all of those CT diaries converted to Casey diaries... (heck, i had even forgotten the name of the challenger to Santorum.)

          look at things like a cold, hard gambler: we only have a few chips left... best to bet on Casey (and Tester and Cantwell) or bet on Lamont?  The payoff for Lamont might be very high (though even that is doubtful, as both Lamont+Lieberman will caucus with dems), but the risk is extreme: if we lose (and signs point to the fact that we will), we become impotent, and the opportunity lost in the other races is gone for another 2 years.

    •  i believe that... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland, concerned, khereva

      ...there's a distinct possiblity that lamont will win, especially if things continue to go so disasterously for this administration. so, i guess i'm not sure why you're positive he's going to lose.

      because there are many, many bloggers on dailykos, we're getting LOTS of coverage of all the various races. i was happy to read a diary by jon tester this week, plus all the great comments his diary netted.

      i'm not sure how many diaries are posted each day here, or how many are focused on upcoming races, but i think that if a visitor really wants to know about a particular race, all they have to do is search the tags to find what they're looking for.

      The radical invents views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them. - Mark Twain

      by FemiNazi on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:43:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  diaries are one thing... (3+ / 0-)

        Daily frontpage spotlights on Joe by mcjoan and others is another.  Yesterday I believe there were 5 entries on the frontpage alone about Joe.

        Come on: let's get some perspective.

        let's not fall down the Nader-like hole that we're falling down...

        •  just because... (6+ / 0-)

 don't think the race is a big deal, doesn't mean that is indeed the case.

          i think what armondo and many of the posters to this diary are trying to say is that just smacking down lieberman in the primary is quite the moral victory for we democrats. a lamont victory in november could signal a return to dominance for the dems.

          i'm not sure what nader has to do with any part of this conversation, but for you and all the others who are tired of hearing about lamont should take heed of the old saw: if you ain't interested, then just move along.

          The radical invents views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them. - Mark Twain

          by FemiNazi on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:58:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You misrepresent what he said (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            clonecone, StupidAsshole

   don't think the race is a big deal

            This is your interpretation. He did not say that.

            Of course CT-Sen is a big is not the ONLY deal. Front paged articles are not the same as diaries in terms of weight impact.

            Daily Kos has a POWERFUL impact on what breaks thru the SCLM radar. CT-SEN has sucked up mongo front page space. It is not the ONLY race that counts.

            What if Lamont wins and we lose 6 other close Senate races? Lieberman will be out, but Bush will still have his rubberstamp margin. And there will be no checks and balances on the move to a unitary president.

            Edward R. Murrow:We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.

            by digital drano on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 04:43:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Wasting resources (5+ / 0-)

          is what you are doing. You lost that campaign LONG ago.

          Everybody dies alone.

          by Armando on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 04:36:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  We should concentrate on all the races (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidincleveland, concerned, khereva

    But Atrios is right that Lieberman is making things even harder for the Dem candidates in CT, since Lieberman's strategy is to basically galvanize Republican voters.

    Lamont needs to paint Lieberman as teh de-facto Republican candidate every chance he gets.  Once Dems in CT realize that Joe is running as a Republican, they'll pick the real Democrat in the race.

    But yes -- we should concentrate on other races.  It's just that aside from crazy Conrad Burns and racist George Allen, there haven't been a lot of juicy stories to cover.

  •  Because of Daily Kos, I have started (7+ / 0-)

    caring about races in places other than here in KY--and for the first time in my life, I have starting sending money to Democratic candidates in other states--including Lamont and Jack Carter. I think if we are going to clean up the mess that has been made by the GOP, we Dems are going to have to work hard to oust as many of the crooks as we can.

  •  Yeah let's stop talking bout CT-Sen (7+ / 0-)


    But we wouldn't want to form a circular firing squad now, would we.

  •  You are known by the company you keep (10+ / 0-)

    From today's Times article:

    “For me, it’s an uncomplicated decision,” said William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard and a neoconservative who is helping Mr. Lieberman through an independent group called Vets for Freedom, which is helping to raise funds and providing strategic advice for the senator.

    “Partisan Republicans may be ambivalent; they see a partisan advantage to Lamont,” he said. But, he said, “Foreign policy hawks and Bush doctrine believers and prowar types, we want Lieberman to win.”

    And yet the DLC and other beltway Dems still have ANY qualms about repudiating Lieberman? For me, the continuing focus on CT is worthwhile primarily because it provides distinction between beltway insiders and true progressives that want to change the direction of our country.

  •  a fish in the hand (6+ / 0-)

    i remember '02, when internals showed bill bradbury beating gordon smith, if he could just get the money to get his message out. dnc promised big, came up empty- wasted so much even in the last weeks, trying to bring down jeb. and winning that senate seat would have been a lot more valuable than the florida governor's office! anyway, terry mcauliffe's long gone- thank god!

    and i do wish we were paying more attention to claire mccaskill- ahead in the polls, well behind in cash on hand. and winning true republican seats is more important than winning lieberman's whateverness seat. but they're ALL important! and if we don't have the money and energy to make them all winnable, we're too pathetic to have a voice, anyway!

    this is a big country, facing big problems, and we need think BIG. lieberman's seat has both real and symbolic value- lamont already has the beltway crowd trembling, and that alone makes him a hero! so, the answer to the tpm poster/poseur is this: it's not a question of paying less attention to lamont-lieberman, it's a question of paying more attention to the other races! we're like kinda smart. we can chew gum and tie our shoelaces!

    time forks perpetually toward innumerable futures - borges

    by Laurence Lewis on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:34:34 PM PDT

  •  Scartching My Head, Too. (14+ / 0-)

    First of all, unlike Republicans, we populists, progressives, Democrats and - generally - people whose IQ's are in the 3-digits (vis a vis our Republican counterparts), we can do more than 2 things at once.  So I must respectfully reject the false dichotomoy of, "Either shift attention and $ away from Connecticutt or doom the Democratic Party."  I think we can support Lamont, and Webb, and Sestak, and Lampson, etc.  Simply put, it's not and "either/or" thing.

    Second, Connecticutt is big because if Lamont is defeated, then the entire Nominating Process of the Democratic Party (and, arguably, the Party itself) is, and should be, subject to being considered an irrelevency.  An illegitimate excercise in political shadow-puppetry.  The same Hate Radio -types (Hannity being chief among them) who are trying to orchestrate a Republican and Democratic bolt to vote for Lieberman, will be the same ones who will joyfully pronounce dead the Democratic Party on November 8, should the nominating process become a mere, very expensive joke, in Connecticutt.


    We're working on many levels here. Ken Kesey

    by BenGoshi on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:36:05 PM PDT

  •  I'm spreading 'the wealth' (Heh) around... (5+ / 0-)

    I've sent money, on several occassions, to Lamont.  I read the DKos diaries and visit the CT blogs.  It's an interesting race.

    But I can walk and chew gum at the same time.  I've given to several other candidates, and on Tuesday , the day my daughter goes back to school, I'll start working at my local Democratic HQ.

    Not a circular firing squad.

  •  Uh........ (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fugue, davidincleveland

    TPM Guest Blogger = Idiot.

    I've commented on this at The News Blog, my own blog and now Armando has to waste his precious essence on this total crapulous bullshit here.

    TPM Guest Blogger please go on over to LGF were yer ignorant ass belongs.


    "Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing."

    by Nestor Makhnow on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:41:29 PM PDT

  •  Fine, Armando (0+ / 0-)

    I'll shut up about Lieberman. But when we win CT-Sen and lose all 435 Congressional districts and all the other 30-odd Senate races, plus all the gubernatorial and state races because we spent all our time on Lieberman, well, I can at least say I tried.

    We now live in a world where the Constitution is simply a piece of paper and the rule of law only applies to oral sex.-BarbinMD

    by PerfectStormer on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:45:35 PM PDT

    •  PerfectStormer, Please Provide Me With A Link(s) (3+ / 0-)

      that show 435 Congressional districts and 30-odd Senate seatsaybe, just maybe, you are exaggerating the impact of spending time on the CT-Sen race.

      •  That should have said (0+ / 0-)

        Please provide me with the link(s) that show 435 Congressional districts and 30-odd Senate seats are in jeopardy and I may change my mind. If those links do not exist, then maybe, just maybe, you are are exaggerating the impact of spending time on the CT-Sen race.

        The comment was fine in preview. Don't understand how it got so messed up. Evil poltergeists maybe.

      •  yes, such gross exaggeration (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The most we could lose is 405 Congressional seats, because the Republicans failed to file in 30 districts.

        I think it is reasonable to watch CT-SEN closely until we can tell for sure whether the incumbent's support droops (which I hope and predict it will). But I'm certainly thinking and posting about other races at the same time.

        CT-SEN isn't the top race for me, but I suspect few out of state would even be talking about Donna Edwards' spirited challenge to Al Wynn,

        if Ned Lamont hadn't drawn attention to this type of challenge, and made his stick.  It has some ripple-out effects that increase its significance.

  •  Josh joins 'Fainthearted Faction' (6+ / 0-)

    Never mind Josh Marshall's mystery blogger.  To use Josh's own memorable phrase from the Social Security debates, he's in the "Fainthearted Faction" himself on this one.

    Anyway, the Joe cult aside, I'm more and more getting the sense that Ned Lamont just didn't get, coming off last Tuesday's win, that he was still very much the underdog and had maybe a week to thoroughly dispatch Joe from the race.

    What kind of panty-waist defeatism is this?

    It's sheer lunacy to imagine that there was anything Lamont could have done to force Lieberman out of the race.  He's got the Republican party behind him, and more than enough DLC turncoats to make this competitive.  Doesn't Marshall know we have to BEAT THEM before they go away?  Well they may have changed the rules on us, but THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT other than beat them again.

    Instead he's weeping about Joe not playing fair, and the beltway Dems not doing enough and so we should just admit we're screwed, and move on.  I'll abandon the "circular firing squad" when the DLC stands down too.  They'll try to blame us if we don't take back either house of Congress, ignoring, of course, their own rule-or-ruin tactics.

    So, basically, we have to move beyond them now.  Any beltway insider who doesn't understand what's at stake here should be ignored.  They are a waste of time and energy.

    I went through something similar in Chicago back in 1983.  Harold Washington won the Democratic mayoral primary, and all of a sudden, white Democratic aldermen who would never have voted Republican in their lives defected en masse to the Republican candidate.

    But as Harold said at the time, "politics ain't beanbag."  He didn't spend a lot of time weeping about the turncoats, he set about to beat them.  And he did.  And it took three years of bareknuckled political fighting.

    And that's what we have to do.  Recognize that established power will always abandon, in a heartbeat, what we all thought of, and what they previously enforced on us, as "the rules".  Lamont would have been shredded by the DLC had he lost and not endorsed Lieberman.  But if you have some power, the rules don't apply.  It ain't fair but we need to get over it and get back in the fight.

    Ned Lamont needs to get his operation on the ground, he needs to relentlessly hit Joe Lieberman as the tool of Bush that he is and make this a referendum on Bush, not a referendum on Lieberman.  Hammering Bush offers the chance to unite the Democratic base with the substantial number of Republicans who have had enough of Bush and one-party rule.  Rove et al have forced this kind of race on us and we have no choice but to fight back hard.

    If Josh Marshall doesn't get that, forget about him.  

    This is a ground war.

  •  Lieberman vindicated Lamont's run (7+ / 0-)

    We said, it is not about idealogical purity, rather it is that Lieberman deliberately harms other Democrats.

    And Lieberman totally proves our point by running a campaign that depends on getting out the Republican voters. sheesh!

    fact does not require fiction for balance

    by mollyd on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:53:06 PM PDT

  •  Lieberman cabinet appointment makes Dems look (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fugue, davidincleveland, MO Blue

    like fools...

    Let's see...

    Democrats don't fully support Ned Lamont...

    Joe Lieberman wins...Democrats win Senate 51-59

    Karl Rove calls Joe with his Defense Secretary appointment..

    Jodi Rell appoints Republican Senator...

    Voila...Democrats look like even bigger idiots for pseudo supporting Lieberman instead of Lamont...

    You don't believe me, show me any statement from anyone contradicting this scenario...

    If Mr./Mrs. DK thinks there is a circular firing squad now, wait until he/she gets a load of the one for Schumer, Pryor, et. al. if this scenario comes to fruition...

    Sen. Lieberman has made his make him lie in it...

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you...then you win -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by justmy2 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:53:21 PM PDT

  •  agreed-lamont race=importnt+trolls freepn coments (0+ / 0-)
  •  Support Lamont? (6+ / 0-)

    Yes, I support Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman. And, I'll send him a hundred bucks on Monday. But, I can't spend any more money or time on that race because there are so many other races that are just as important, and I think that was TPM's Guest Poster's point.

    Here in Georgia, we are trying to take back one branch of government. The GOP controls both house of the legislature and the governor's office. That is just as important, to me, as the CT-Sen race.

    On a national level, we have to take back one house of the Congress. Six Senate seats (not ONE). Fifteen House seats.

    If we spend all our time and energy beating Lieberman, who's going to knock on doors, and lick envelops, and make phone calls in the other races?

    •  Of course (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      No one is saying a Georgia Dem should drop everything and run to Connecticut.  If Lamont can't win on the ground in Connecticut so be it.  Those who don't live there, for the most part can do nothing but send some bucks.  And that's perfectly okay.

      But what I think is going down here is an attempt instill defeatism in those who can and should participate in the ground war that a Lamont victory in Connecticut was ALWAYS going to require.

      Those who are criticizing the circular firing squad are saying that we should stop attacking Lieberman and accept the inevitability of his victory.  And that's crap.

      •  asdf (4+ / 0-)

        Those who are criticizing the circular firing squad are saying that we should stop attacking Lieberman and accept the inevitability of his victory.

        That's not the majority complaint I see at all.  What I see a lot of is people saying hey, you're using all this space to talk about this one race, while meanwhile there are a lot of races getting virtually no money or attention that we could win and actually maybe take back the house -- which is a damned important goal.

        Attack the fuck out of Lieberman. Work on it. Blog on it. But for dog's sake, don't get so distracted by it that you fail to volunteer or send a check or discuss your most local competetive house race.

        •  Well, I don't disagree with you either. (0+ / 0-)

          But you have to distinguish between what a good activist like yourself is talking about doing with the motivations of the fainthearted DLC-loving faction is saying.

          Your criticism of the Circular Firing Squad is not the same as what Marshall's guest is saying.  

          Anyone who claims to have expected that Lamont would force Lieberman out in the first week is either a fool or a liar.  That's what these beltway types are saying.

          We obviously can't be all about Lamont Lieberman.  This IS a national election.  But don't be sucked in by the idea that all who say this think as you do.  For these guys, it's a scam.

    •  That's how I read DK's post too. (0+ / 0-)

      There's nothing wrong with reminding people that there are other, equally important races. I had no problem with him to that point. But, either he, or I completely missed Atrios' point about contributing to Hillary - or any other '08 Presidential hopefuls. To the degree that resources are finite, those are resources that bring nothing to bear on the mid-terms.
      So while DK had a valid point about prioritizing resources, he ended up completely missing his own boat.

      •  Disagree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peraspera, davidincleveland

        Those who are saying "stop the circular firing squad" are really saying "accept the inevitability of a Lieberman victory."  And saying so before the fight has even started.

        Of course there are other important races and of course not everyone can or should run to Connecticut.  Tell me something I don't know.

        But understand that DK's talk is designed to screw Lamont and boost Lieberman.

  •  Armando, (3+ / 0-)

    thanks for protecting our back  - from here in Connecticut.
    A flower for you:

  •  House Races- A different perspective (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Christopher Walker, Pete Rock

    CT voters are clearly a pretty cerebral and independent minded group. They have supported Dodd, Rell, Lieberman, Shays, Johnson, and before redistricting- Jim Maloney.

    Just observing those elected officials, it seems that CT'ers are less interested in partisanship and more interested in the individual.

    I believe somebody posted on here that the highest number of registered voters are Independents. It is the same way in MA even though it's clearly heavily Democratic.

    Therefore, I would submit that CT voters can and do split tickets. They support Democratic presdiential candidates and Nancy Johnson. They supported Rowland and Dodd. Therefore I believe that Lieberman being as much of a known quantity as he is, voters are either going to be for him or against him. I highly doubt too many likely voters at this point would say they don't know enough about him to make a choice.

    So as far as House candidates, I would think there's a chance that an "I" candidacy is not going to hurt them as much as is feared. It's not Ross Perot or Tom Golisano or Jesse Ventura out's the same guy they've known for 18 years who was the VP nominee. I don't think coming out to vote for him would necessarily have an effect on down ballot races.

  •  heh... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spit, hopscotch1997, StupidAsshole

    Armando. some of us here think it is important that lieberman get out and don't mind a lot of CTSen diaries.

    but can the Ct-Sen diaries be limited to two in a row at most? Or maybe 4 per day? I mean sheesh.

  •  Why doesn't the guest blogger... (8+ / 0-)

    ... bother asking why all these "big coin" Democrats like Hillary, Warner, Biden and Bayh aren't getting their asses up to Connecticut to stand with Lamont, raise a few bucks for him, and tell Joe, publicly, to drop out so Lamont and the CT Dem House candidates have a better shot?

    I suspect that much of this "too-much-Lamont-Lieberman" criticism is coming from people backing those `08 Dem hopefuls who don't want to be forced to take on one of their DLC hawk bretheren in Lieberman.

    I'm sick to fucking death of Warner and his big-toothed grin ginning up support for state senate candidates in New Hampshire while simply paying lip service to Lamont and offering excuses for Lieberman's independent run.

    Note to Warner and Hillary backers: the race in Connecticut matters.  And lip service won't cut it.

    Forget Bayh and Biden.  They're not going anywhere, anyway.

    Visit Satiric Mutt -- my contribution to the written cholesterol now clogging the arteries of the Internet.

    by Bob Johnson on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 03:09:22 PM PDT

  •  it's all about who 'we' are (5+ / 0-)

    the people who don't want lamont funded may pretend that they favor lamont but it doesn't make any sense.

    to beat lieberman is going to be hard.  it was made a lot harder by the democrats, like boxer, who campaigned for lieberman for the primary and now say they are for lamont.

    i think a race in maryland, donna edwards v. albert wynn, is extremely important.  wynn is not only a servant of the republican agenda, for example voting for the cheney energy bill, wrong way on the internet, wrong on bankruptcy, wrong on estate tax -- he is also running a thuggish campaign.  one of his congressional staff people and others who may have been on his campaign staff beat up an edwards worker - really beat up - after threatening to kill him.  wynn, in my opinion, is a major thug, and i already knew of prior incidents over the years when his people have used these strong arm tactics.  ben cardin's friend steny hoyer is a wynn supporter.  you can read about a lot of this stuff at

    but i really part company with those people supporting other candidates who complain that the attention on the lamont race is sucking the air out of other races.  in fact, lamont's victory over lieberman in the primary gives heart to those who are struggling to bring genuine democracy to our sham-democracy country.

    the people who talk about lamont-lieberman as a diversion are not talking reality.  where should 'we' put 'our' money.  the people who are funding lieberman are against everything that the vast majority of the regular contributors to DailyKos believe.

    Politics is not arithmetic. It's chemistry.

    by tamandua on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 03:09:24 PM PDT

  •  TPM = TNR (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sj, davidincleveland
    Sort of.

    We get the same, "I used to be a liberal leftist but now I'm more centrist" line of argument. It's a reasonable kind of Democratic position, a "go along to get along" kind of comfy, wishy washy, namby pamby bullshit attitude that will get us slammed in November if we adopt it.

    CTG and Dean's 50-state strategy is about fighting everywhere, every race, every seat, from mayorships, to governorships, to state legislatures, to the presidency. We fight every contest from Alabama to Iowa, from Orange County to Buffalo to the Kansas school board.

    If you're a thin-lipped, tight-assed, SUV-driving plastic little bobble-headed fundamentalist "I [heart] Bush!" moron anywhere in the country, you'd better be scared. The tide has turned. And Lieberman is emblematic of everything we're up against. He's a cancer and a leech and traitor and a 5th column and a weak link. We purge him out, we make it clear that there's no place left to hide. You support a policy that butchers people, tortures them, leaves widows screaming in pools of blood and like Orrin Hatch, loftily pendantizes about "staying the course" then we take you out and kick your ass to the motherfucking gutter.

    This time, we overlook no contests, cede nothing. And in that, TPM winds up carrying TNR's water. Screw them. Josh is dead to me.

    Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

    by The Raven on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 03:11:00 PM PDT

  •  Stop reading Josh Marshall. (6+ / 0-)

    It's not worth it.

    There's nothing happening in the middle, folks. Nothing.

  •  some dissent (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    (I did assure you there would be a future opportunity to cultivate antipathy towards me, didn't I?)

    I'm indifferent as to the question of proproportionate effort/money to whatever races, but I do see  a lot of pointless rancor here in which people get wrapped up. Insofar as others are able to document that type of commentary, it does feed a perception, that the opposition has already laid tracks for travel: that the Democratic opposition consists of bush haters, and by extension, of course, Lieberman.

    That is not to say that we concern ourselves solely as to how we are perceived, but to also acknowledge how much we lack in the power to create perception against MSM control.

    The blogosphere may have helped Lamont win, but I don't suspect it equally made everyone turn to the blogoshere for information for races on candidates. Most people will get their info from the MSM, who still has the power to selectively represent bloggerheads.

    In addition, to react to criticism so extremely, almost seems to deny that we are indeed human, can get obsessed, can gloat over and continue to eviscerate a dying enemy. (Oh, and that there might be others effected by human sympathies to redouble their CPR efforts on said enemy)

    And I have seen a lot of simply ranting, poor quality stuff on this issue.

    I am sure this diary is already too long for me to continue commenting on it--just wanted to make sure my .02 promissory note was received.

    I swore I heard a stem cell yell:'Blastocysterhood is powerful!"

    by Miss Devore on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 03:16:26 PM PDT

  •  They're all important!!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Political pardons are unacceptable Mr Bush,and so is hiding your daddy's secrets behind exectutive orders,free the truth now.Econ 3.50&Soc. 5.79

    by wmc418 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 03:19:15 PM PDT

  •  Two reasons why DK is wrong (6+ / 0-)
    1. DK believes in what Atrios calls the "Lump of Campaign Cash" fallacy, and I call the zero-sum cash fallacy.  The idea is that there's only so much Democratic money floating around and that money going to Lamont is money snatched away from some other Democratic candidate.  The problem with that belief is that much of Lamont's money is coming from people, mostly old-style lefties and Green folk, who are so sick and tired of DLC-style Democrats that they haven't donated to them in ages, if ever.  If Ned Lamont suddenly pulled out, this money would not have gone to another Democrat. It would have stayed in the wallets of these old-style lefties.
    1. Lieberman's continued presence in the race isn't just hurting Lamont.  It's also hurting the three Connecticut Democrats running for Congressional seats.  They are the biggest victims of Holy Joe's wounded ego and his desire to see Hadassah continue to draw her lobbyist salary -- no point in her bosses paying her the big lobbyist bucks when her husband's no longer a United States Senator, right?
    •  I agree. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I read the same comments about Nader voters from 2000, that they did not actually 'steal' votes from Al Gore because Nader voters were strictly for Nader. They weren't voters whose votes were up for discussion or who would have voted Democratic had they not been given a choice of somebody further to the left or who was stronger on environmental issues.

  •  As I said in... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sj, msl, vcmvo2, davidincleveland of those diaries last night:  I have to laugh at a diary about Lamont/Lieberman telling us to stop talking about Lamont/Lieberman and more importantly, I don't think they really grasp the importance of that race.  Not to mention, we are capable of doing two or more things at once.  

    And btw, it would be interesting to get a count on how many of those "Let's concentrate on Republicans, not Connecticut" diaries are by first time diarists.  Just saying...

    Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

    by Barbara Morrill on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 03:25:58 PM PDT

  •  Lieberman is trying to redefine 'the center' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sj, davidincleveland

    The extremely dangerous thing about Lieberman is that he's trying to redefine "the center" to be his muddled, opportunistic and just plain incorrect platform.  The MSM seems to be eating this up, and that's what makes it dangerous.

    Lamont needs to win to ensure that the Democrats control the narrative on what "the center" is.  If Lieberman loses, he'll be quickly ignored and forgotten.  If Lieberman wins, it means six more years of this twerp as a go-to guy for rubberstamping right-wing crap as "centrist"

  •  I don't know how much (0+ / 0-)

    contributions to the largely self-funded Lamont really matter. I think the trick is to take advantage of free media every time Lamont holds a press conference or makes an announcement, in which he can dispute the latest claim the Lieberman camp has made. As such, it will be treated as state news instead of paid ads, which inherently seem more credible.

  •  It's Not Just Money (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StupidAsshole, davidincleveland

    It is unfortunate that the CT.-Sen. race must continue to attract so much money and attention relative to other important races, but it has become a grudge match  for everyone involved now, and there is no turning back.  Even more than the money being spent, I regret the progressive blogging energy that will be expended to retire the UnDead Lieberman.  But, my regrets notwithstanding, I'm going to continue contributing to Mr. Lamont's campaign.

    In addition, I think Mr. Lamont and the relatively few (so far) Democratic politicians who have the guts to campaign for him should begin pointing out that the Republicans are using Lieberman like they use Bin Laden.  Bush and the Republicans obviously believe Bin Laden is more valuable to them politically (which is the only way they view things) while still at large than either dead or in prison.  Likewise, Lieberman is much more valuable to the GOP as a faux Democrat in the Senate than working, for example, as a D.C. lobbyist for Israel or the pharmaceutical industry.

  •  This is race is not about liberal purity (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidincleveland, lightfoot

    It is about whether we are going to be a true opposition party, who will finally have the power to finally be able to end the enabling of this President's policies and start to finally give the idea of true bipartisonship a chance again. Republicans don't understand anything but power and force. They cannot respect our positions and where we are coming from unless we hold the reins of power to some capacity. We can never be a unified country again until they feel they HAVE TO compromise with us. Such compromise will never take place with appeasers like Lieberman. He would give away our values as long as it makes helps him appear to be this great "bipartisan" statesman. But the NY Times' endorsement of Lamont called bullshit on his brand of "statemanship" and called it was it is: enablement.

    The reason this race deserves the attention that it does is that it encapsulates what has been missing from our party. Lamont is no radical or McGovernite or any of the other propagandistic mischaracterizations that the MSM and GOP want to perpetuate. He's a rather common sense progressive who is appalled at where this country is heading.

    And while he may be getting a lot of attention in the blogosphere, he sure as hell is not getting a lot of money that could go to other races. I don't want to misquote how much he received for his primary race, but I believe it was only around $1.5 million. Lieberman received $12 million. Marty Meehan in Massachusetss, a Congressman in Massachusetts who won 67% of the vote last time has $5 million. Any money to Lamont from Democratic donors, even in small amount but great in number, shows that we all support the message he is running on. And it's a message that all challengers -- Tester, Webb, McCaskill, Casey, Whitehouse, Brown, Carter, and Pederson -- should all be running on. He's a great example this cycle of a strong Democrat. He deserves all the attention he is getting.

    I voted for Joe and all I got was this lousy sig line.

    by John Campanelli on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 03:38:55 PM PDT

  •  The nightmare scenario and Liebermans wet dream (0+ / 0-)

    49-49 with 2 independents. The empire wins with Darth Cheney and Ted Stevens as backup sith.

    Republicans are like SUV's, everyones trying to get rid of theirs in '06.

    by LeftRoaster on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 03:39:16 PM PDT

  •  The circular firing blog (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidincleveland, lightfoot

    is all firing outward at Lieberman as he runs past us buck nekkid -- stripped of any pretense that he is still a democrat.

    I Am The King Of The Eleven Comment Diary and the Duke of C&Jless TU status.

    by CalbraithRodgers on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 03:42:15 PM PDT

  •  Beating Lieberman is crucial. Absolutely. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidincleveland, outofit

    No qualifications needed.  If he wins, do you know how much crap the MSM and their Repub/necon masters will rub in our face?

    Nothing is more key than a Lamont win.

    Others are important, but just to stop the pending propaganda flow that will come from a Lamont loss makes this one #1.

    Folks in other places have to work hard, too. But we have given lots of energy to Lamont. We can't stop now.

    I love the smell of impeachment in the morning!

    by gabbardd on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 03:46:14 PM PDT

    •  Winning the House and/or the Senate (0+ / 0-)

      ... is more important than the Connecticut Senate race. If Lieberman wins, the media will use this for Republican propaganda, of course. But if we take the House and/or the Senate, that propaganda won't make much difference. The real significance of the Connecticut Senate race, apart from the Connecticut Senate seat itself, is the message the race sends out before the election. Lieberman's chief advantage is all the free stumping that cable news gives him. The Reublicans have put a lot on the line with this race, if Lamont is percieved ahead, and Lieberman is percieved as the sore loser extremist that he is, that can swing perceptions in general more our way. Cheney praising Lieberman can only be good for Lamont.

      It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.

      by A Citizen on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 04:54:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure if the propaganda doesn't matter. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You may be correct, and I hope you are.  We could get to the point where people here view the MSM the same way that people in the former USSR viewed Pravda.  They knew what it was and generally paid no attention to it.

        WInning back the Congress IS the biggest goal of them all, but in terms of individual races I still think CT is the most significant. Besides, wouldn't we all just hate to see a gloating Joe?

        I love the smell of impeachment in the morning!

        by gabbardd on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:06:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The guest fails to realize that many are NOT (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidincleveland, outofit

    as interested in just taking back the Congress as we are in taking back the whole country. There is a big difference, and unless we work for the latter, we will never achieve the former. Who cares about electing establishment Democrats that are basically Republicans? Almost no one - so voters just elect "real" Republicans instead and it cripples us.

    By taking over the county from those who push the status quo (i.e. the Liebermans), we end up with STRONG Democratic candidates who actually can go head to head with their election opponents. Now we have bold people with strong voices like Webb and McNerney and Tester and Lamont instead of the usual (R)-light candidates with their acquiescing battered spouse syndromes.

    Sign up here to be part of "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film

    by Reality Bites Back on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 03:46:20 PM PDT

  •  I love Josh Marshall (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fugue, davidincleveland

    But whenever he goes on vacation he turns the reins over to the biggest DLC wanker he can find.

  •  I hope you're going to stick around.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    matt le w, HeavyJ, davidincleveland

    I can dig why you took off for a bit, but despite the whatevers and whoosits, and sometimes things (not this time though!) that I disagree with, you are a priceless asset to this forum..

    Theme song title and a question mark comment goes here.


    "Let's put a shoe in there!" ~ Haywood Nelson

    by nowheredesign on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 04:04:44 PM PDT

  •  I love Atrios (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fugue, davidincleveland

    Hell, I'm in love with Atrios. He's way cute in person, too.

    We need to pound on Joe and his Democratic Senator enablers until said Senators do what they're supposed to do - talk Joe off the ledge (what Atrios said a week back, if I recall).  GET. HIM. OUT. OF. THERE.

    Then it's time to focus on the remainder of the races.

    Hillary gets some credit for saying pre-primary that she would back the winner, and for giving $5000 to Lamont.  But with $22M in the bank, she ought to give him a LOT more.  Ante up, Hillary.  And all the rest of you Dem Senators, too.

    •  NY ads (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Her ads might either reinforce the "sensible moderate" angle or the "innovative progressive" angle. And they'll be shown in the NYC media market.

      Actually as a barometer of sorts, one might say that her campaign will be a barometer of which brand of politics she sees as ascendant. And her messages will be seen by 1/3 or more of Connecticut voters.

  •  Lamont losing to Joe; Repubs help a lot. (0+ / 0-)

    A neutral observer might think that attacking Lieberman was a tactical error.

    But do we allow neutral observers, or is this just for rabid lambs?

    How dreadful knowledge of the truth can be when there's no help in the truth. -Sophocles, (495-405 BCE)

    by ormondotvos on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 04:22:19 PM PDT

  •  The Republi-trolls are giving it the old college (0+ / 0-)

    try, but there is a little fact about any Senate race that brings the bean-counters of power focused on the main event: In the Senate, Dick Cheney is the tie breaker. Without Lieberman or any other Republican enabler, the tide starts to shift in favor of the Democrats. Translation: No Draft for Iraq; no more blood for oil.
       And, with enough numbers to outvote the marginal Democrats, which are about 7 or so, then you're looking at--drum roll--Senate ratification of impeachment proceedings brought by the House of Representatives. Kind of a big deal.

  •  There are times when it pays NOT to be a Democrat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, MarketTrustee

    around here and Joe Lieberman in any election is one of those. I'm just grateful that I don't have to worry about it now that Lamont won the primary.  Before then it was a matter of passing general interest. So, I can't really give up on something I wasn't that engaged with in the first place.

    In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

    by a gilas girl on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 04:51:11 PM PDT

    •  Heh (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, davidincleveland

      What soe of these geniuses don't realize, I think you do, is that I am a PArty man through and through, but theyt can find a quick road to driving out the energy of the base with these type of antics.

      RonK is one of the most deflating Dem operatives imaginable. How he works for McDermott is beyond me.

      Everybody dies alone.

      by Armando on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 04:55:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know how ANY of them (0+ / 0-)

        work for any of the other thems. But that's a completely different topic for diarying. funny thing about political operatives, for a people who are supposed to be so smart, most of them aren't very smart.  Maybe we should chalk that up to hyper-specialization of the American economy (and political system???)  We need more Jacks (and Jills) of all trades to muddy up the waters and make us all, if not smarter, then better thinkers.  

        In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

        by a gilas girl on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:14:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  a party man would not think (0+ / 0-)

        and say casey is a shitty candidate.  not at this point.

        so i know you are being disengenous.

        maybe not lying.  i'm sure you believe in your heart of hearts your loyalties are to the dem party.

        and so you are only speaking out for what you believe is in the best interests of your party (you're a party man, right?).

        well so do others you disagree with.  but they don't really care about the party do they?  they only care about themselves.

        why their selfishness is truly equal to the unparalleled selflessnes of the netroots.

        again.  someone loyal to this party would admit he misspoke when he said casey is a shitty candidate.

  •  Armando (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StupidAsshole, MarketTrustee

    You favorably linked Gilliard last night.  And I agree with him that Lieberman is hurting all other races:

    The problem is that Lieberman is the flying wedge for the GOP. He can say the Dems are weak and captive of radicals, and bolster Bush at the same time.

    Taking him out is the number one priority because his continued presence hurts all races, especially the Connecticut House races. He is literally their lifesaver. Joe attacking Dems hurt all Dems, in all their races. Ignoring him would be suicidal. Getting him out of the race should be the priority.Not just for Connecticut Dems, but for the entire party.

    (My emphasis)

    The catch is, this is premised on the notion that Lieberman will be pressured out before Election Day.  Gilliard's whole point is that once that happens, it will help other races.  Implying, obviously, that it is before Election Day when this happens and that other races are still ongoing and available to be focused on straightforwardly, without the Lieberman shadow (which, again, I agree exists).

    The question that you went all dismissively "8 million" on me with last night (which is absurd from my perspective because then and this post are the only two times I've discussed it at DKos and I don't have freaking cohorts) remains:

    What is the backup plan in case Lieberman does stay in?  What happens if the oxygen is sucked out all the way til November 7?  Gilliard didn't address it and I haven't seen that discussion held.  I admit I've been busy attaching myself to a campaign so if it's been extensively hashed out, give me a link and I'll read it.  As it stands, it seems a glaring logical hole.

    It's foolish, IMO, not to countenance and prepare for the possibility that that dipshit will just stay in the race all the way through.

    If you or someone else can make a strong, cogent argument that if Lieberman stays in all the way to the end, the finite resources of time and attention and GOTV organizing power will be far more evenly spread out on races that affect who the Senate Majority Leader is and the House committee chairs are, I am open to hearing it.

    "He's a candidate for office. He can no longer whorefuck with impunity." -Al "Albert" Swearengen

    by RepublicanTaliban on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 04:58:54 PM PDT

  •  My 2 cents worth... (3+ / 0-)

    It is important, very important.  It will send a very strong signal to all the powers that be ... if Lamont wins.  

    My money would not have gone to the DNC anyway.  In that respect it is "found" money.  I will be here at Kos, and donate my limited funds to races that I find interesting.  Certainly more money will go to Lamont, with even extra if money becomes an issue in his campaign.  Money will go to the senate race here in MO, (a small donation most likely.)I probably will send a little to Jimmy Carters son, even though that race is not that close (yet), because I like it that they came here and talked with us.  I'm watching the Webb race, that kind of calls to me.

    The Lamont/Liberman race is far from over.  I don't want for Lamont to win, I want him to win BIG.  I WANT to send a message.  

    I expect that DK is read by many from the other side.  I want them to know that we are "specially interested" in this race.  I want every little slip that Liberman makes, every donation that comes from a Republican source, every Rebuplican who says something supportive... I want it all to be splashed all over DK, and find its way to the blogosphere and maybe even the MSM.  (You can bet most of them now have someone monitoring what goes on here.)

    You've got someone in a close race that you thinks needs DK attention, and that is worthy of me sending a donation too?  Then write a diary about him/her.  Tell me why I should send some of my hard-earned (limited) dollars to them.  

    I CAN multi task.  So let me know why and I might just pay attention.

  •  Why all the Repug effort? (3+ / 0-)

    Why are the repugs endorsing Leiber?
    Why are their donors putting money into Leiber's campaign?
    Why are the Repugs and their donors turnng thier backs on a legit  Repug candidate in CT?
    Why are the Repug pundits and parrots all endorsing Leiber and try to spread FUD by saying what a disaster this is that Lamont won?
    Finally, why did Leiber elect to run a s "third party"? My guess on this one is that he knew he had Repug backing as soon as it looked like he would lose the primary.

    But I think the answer to all of this is that the Repugs see the CT race as the tipping point: If Lamont wins, it will be the beginning of the tide that takes them out of office, or so they think. Whether or not the Repugs' fears are correct, they are acting on them, and the gauntlet has been thrown down. the Repugs are pulling out their tired scare tactics already, and we must respond fast and throw it all back in thier faces- it's their mess, thier failures, their corruption, their lies, thier flooding of New Orleans, their huge national debt, their health care crisis, their spying, their war on Iraq.

    This is the challenge to us, the netroots, to deal the corrupt Repugs the mortal blow. We have to put our full weight behind Lamont, and make certain he is elected to office.

    This is no circular firing squad at all. This is the first of many challenges to the power of the common man, the netroots, and those who get their news and information from the net, being distrustful of their government and the media. My take is that if Lamont wins, the fencesitters will come over and the rest of the country will vote Dems into office in the following elections.

    Lamont / we must win CT.

    •  Heres what's happening: (0+ / 0-)

      The Dems are reaching a consensus on Iraq, and the Republicans are fracturing. Shays. Hagel. Lots more on the way to November. It's got people like Orrin Hatch violently shitting in their pants.

      The only major thing in the way of Democratic consensus is Lieberman. That is why the GOP needs him so fucking deperately. His inane Bushian drivel is their rock - without it, the stay-in-Iraq crew is a minority of a deeply unpopular party.

      He lost his primary, so that fight should be over. But no. Rethugs and their allies have thrown the rulebook out the window for six long years.

      But we can make lemonade from Lieberman. His Iraq position need to be exposed, daily, as extremely dangerous delusion. 9% of Americans believe Iraq has reduced the risk of terror in the U.S. Joe's silly prattle that 91% of America is "the Al Quaeda wing" will be useful to us.

      Joe is a doule edged sword: he crystalizes and solidifies the oppostion to the war. Face it: there would be no Lamont campaign absent his outsized idiocy. Kerry, Mutha, Edwards & Co. will get louder as Lieberman gets more shrill. The will define themselves in opposition to him, as Kerry wiely did this week. And best of all, they will talk about Iraq, something that Democrats were supposed to avoid this campaign season.

  •  Backlash against pragmatists (3+ / 0-)

    Wow, there surely has been a robust backlash against the anti-Lieberman-Lamont folks.  But I think it is simply a valid concern for the more moderate DKos members.

    Compare Lieberman's voting record to:


    Do we really need to invoke the "ghost of Ralph Nadar", i.e. "There is no difference between Lieberman and the Republicans".  Check the voting records, please.

    Obviously there should be plenty of room at the DKos for different viewpoints on this issue.  The "anti-Lieberman-Lamont" crowd has a valid point.

    Continuing to push Lieberman means 24/7 coverage of race of an Independent vs. Democrat.  It means Lieberman's mug on cable TV daily trying to appeal to Independents.  It means media attention on "a rift" in the Democratic Party.  It means Democrats continually discussing the finer points of Lieberman-Lamont.

    And calling out people here is silly.  Like it or not, it is a valid point.  Keep spanking us if you want, but I don't think "Joe 6-pack" will be following the finer points of Lieberman-Lamont.  

    All you need to do is watch Rove on this.  It would be nice to throw a frame on him sometimes instead of playing in his frames.

    •  A couple of things (3+ / 0-)

      But I think it is simply a valid concern for the more moderate DKos members.

      That's fundamentally misreading the situation. Lamont v. Lieberman is not about ideology.  Your statement implies that it's wild-eyed leftists versus moderates.  That's not true.  Ned Lamont is a moderate.  

      This race, in my mind, is about two things.  1.  The Iraq War/foreign policy (Lieberman is not representing the people of CT on these issues); and 2. Who runs this party?  The grass roots or the D.C. cabal?  The very fact that Lieberman is mounting an independent campaign after being voted down by CT Dems is very telling in this regard - Joe feels no obligation to listen to the will of his constituency.  That doesn't play in a democracy.

      Really, I just want to say how tired I am about the false choices being presented lately.  We can support Lamont AND Tester AND each and over other candidate of our choosing.  It's not a one-or-the-other proposition.

    •  Why does Rove (0+ / 0-)

      support Lieberman?

  •  Put me in the middle of circular firing squad (0+ / 0-)

    I get why Lieberman is evil, I really do.

    But I'm also a fan of a 360' attack against Republicans everywhere.

    So I guess that puts me in the dead-center of the circular firing squad: I don't think we should drop the Lamont/Lieberman storyline, but I do think we need more local blogging (a la Kid Oakland).

  •  I come here to DKos (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sj, vivacia, peraspera, davidincleveland

    because I want to help change the Democratic Party into a winning party.  To do this, we must return to our roots: support for social and economic justice, support for the labor movement, support for fair trade, support for raising the minimum wage, support for a security net for those who fall on hard times in this cruel economy, preservation of democracy though publicly financed, transparent and accurate elections, protection of our civil liberties and the Bill of Rights, and service to the lower and middle classes as a countervailing force against the multi-national corporate elites who have absolutely no concern for this country.

    The DLC is the weasel in the henhouse, the antithesis to those traditional Democratic values that I hold most dear.  If not for Bill Clinton's extraordinary political skills, the DLC movement would have withered on the vine, and without Bill, they are dust in the wind.  By winning back our party we will defeat the Republicans as a matter of course.

    The defeat of Joe Lieberman is critical to the future of our party.  His defeat in the Democratic Primary has revealed to all the Demo-Zombie that he is. We must guide him back into his self-dug political resting place and pour the cement over his soulless remains.

    Insert Meaningful Signature Less Than 160 Characters Here.

    by lightfoot on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 06:04:18 PM PDT

  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

    Joe's going to try to win by bringing Republicans to the polls

    How much clearer can this be?

  •  well (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Maddie05, outofit

    I'm fucking sick of Joe Lieberman and I wish he would drop out of this fucking race already, but it doesn't look like he will.... and I'm sick of Lieberman diaries and I think half of them are pointless and useless. I myself am moving on to other shit (except, you know, reading this diary and commenting on it...)

    I think the circular firing squad is a waste of time. If you're not interested in Lamont/Lieberman, write and read about something else. Make the case. Be proactive. Stop the whining and get busy.

    81 days, 6 Senate seats, 15 House seats, hold the rest. Let's get busy. Support Eric Massa for Congress

    by Buffalo Girl on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 06:32:15 PM PDT

  •  Joe helps the enemy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chicago jeff

    It's his modus opperandi. I worked in CT for Bill Curry in '02. Joe Lieberman did NOTHING for Curry, even though the man he was running against, John Rowland, was an ethical trainwreck.
    He's now in jail for receiving bribes.
    John Rowland was a family friend of the Bushes. It was also rumored that Holy Joe meant to help Rowland by doing nothing for Curry. He's never done anything to get rid of Simmons, Johnson and Shay.
    For the life of me, I can't figure out why the word "respected" constantly accompanies his name in the mainstream media.
    Principled? Right. If being a sociopath is some sort of "principle".
    That's not to say that we could use MORE on the other races out there. I could use the help of the Kossacks in Missouri. Ohio is huge right now.
    There is the possibility that we could capture both houses of Congress. Longshot? Sure, but the odds are better than they have been in a while.
    I can't stand Lieberman either, but let's not let him distract us enough as to where we can't win the Senate back.
    Rove knows this could happen. Why else let it leak that he's helping Holy Joe? It's just like when he said publicly he wanted Dean to win, when really it was Dean that Rove was the most afraid of.

    There's nothing free about Free Markets!

    by Da Rat Bastid on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 07:01:58 PM PDT

  •  So glad you're back Armando! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Support the Republican Party! Buy gasoline.

    by annefrank on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 07:52:15 PM PDT

  •  Circular Firing Squad..? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think of it as sharpening our party, when we cut out the DINO's.  Excuse me for wanting a better representation.

    there is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over

    by DeadB0y on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 08:14:53 PM PDT

  •  Lieberman is another Zell Miller (0+ / 0-)

    This son of a bitch is sitting in the Senate, still with a "D" next to his name, doing everything he can to fuck over the Democratic party and Democratic candidates -- ridiculing Democrats, saying that Lamont and other Democrats who want us out of Iraq are aiding al Qaeda, and helping the three GOP candidates for the House in Connecticut. We have to excise this cancer from our party. Joe must go.

    When we talk about war, we're really talking about peace. George W. Bush

    by Frederick on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 09:03:27 PM PDT

  •  Aren't you just participating in the firing squad (0+ / 0-)

    by firing back???  If you drop it and just keep on keeping on, you will be further ahead than having a pointless discussion that accomplishes nothing imo except waste bytes.

    When you are going through hell, keep going! - Winston Churchill

    by flo58 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 09:04:55 PM PDT

  •  Lamont v Lieberman is THE central 2006 campaign (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    We Shall Overcome, outofit

    Continually exposing and ridiculing the Lieberman/Cheney lie with regards to conflating Iraq with the war on terrorism is a way to:

    1. Get Lamont, a Democrat, elected.
    1. Educate the public nationwide about the fallacy that got us into Iraq and that keeps us there under Republican "leadership."
    1. Change course on US Middle East policy, regardless of whether Democrats retake control of congress.
    1. Produce a domino effect whereby any other national candidate who bought into the Lieberman/Cheney fallacy gets trounced in November.

    All of the ingredients are there: Republican fixation on the race, intense media coverage, and a complete meltdown taking place in Iraq.  We CANNOT back away from this contest (unless we want to simply, quietly let Rove & Co get away with bullshit, again).

  •  Race important for Repubs now (0+ / 0-)

    it effectively gives them the chance of an unexpected gain to offset the loss of say Dewine.
    Personaly I'd rather get on with taking out as many sitting repubs as possible. Some of the battles will be very close and we should be movng all our money and resources to fight these. It would be tragic if we concentrated so much on Ct that we narrowly lost a chance to pick up somewhere else. Even some of the conservative bloggers seem worried about the sentate and seem to want to goad us into concentrating on the Lamont-Liebermann fight.
    I am also concerned that Liebermann has Rell's powerful coattails.

  •  Progressives? (0+ / 0-)

    Atrios has a good point, but would the people that gave millions to Clinton, Nelson, and Meehan give money to progressives?  

  •  Think globally, (0+ / 0-)
    act locally.

    If you're in a district that has a hotly contested race, then by all means work in that area -- give the local candidate your time, talent and treasure.

    If the local candidate is relatively safe/secure, look nearby; Anna Eshoo is my congressperson, and she's in a good spot -- there's some Republican opposing her but they're pretty much dead money (to use the poker term). So, I can look a couple of districts over and see that Jerry McEnerney is putting up a good fight to unseat Richard "Dick" Pombo. Once we get back to "normalcy" in this household, I may give his campaign a holler and see if he needs someone to work a table (the district includes the southern area of Santa Clara County, just a 2 hour bus ride from here).

    If all your local candidates are safe, then look at local measures. I'm thinking of doing a diary series on some of the propositions on the California ballot -- I'd encourage folks in other states to help inform us of what's out there. Some of those issues are worthy of a little help...and some of them might even make great national issues.

    Yes, it's important to support candidates like Lamont and others, but it's also important that we don't go cleaning up the beach while our own backyards are a mess...

  •  It's late & I'm late... (0+ / 0-) this discussion.  Will someone please summarize the community's concensus as to whether or not the outside world should give money to Lamont or invest in home races.

    [Pulls pockets inside out.] (Just for effect, mind you.)

    Oh, Hi, Armondo.  I know your position; I read it (well, squinted sideways through it), but gleaned the meaning. I drink heavily sometimes, too.

    I barely got to know ye, before "the recent unpleasantness".  I rather liked you around, obnoxious as you are.

    You made me feel better about myself.

    {Hey, y'all, don't forget that summary...)

  •  Eyes on the prize ... (0+ / 0-)

    The prize isn't a liberal Senator from Connecticut.  
    The prize isn't a Democratic Congress.
    The prize is a progressive Congress and Presidency that works for people, and not just
        --rich people
        --white people
        --Southern people
        --male people
        --fundamentalist people
    We need Democrats in Connecticut, Montana, Missouri, Rhode Island, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia ...

    The alternative is Republicans (and Lieberman seems to be one) in Congress and the White House.

Meteor Blades, Bob Johnson, Kimberley, Frederick, Grassroots Mom, Alumbrados, JWC, TXdem, JR, coral, RF, mikepridmore, Bill in Portland Maine, Phoenix Woman, lanshark, SarahLee, alyosha, teacherken, Ivan, joejoejoe, moon in the house of moe, MikeB, RonK Seattle, Kimberly Stone, Joan McCarter, musing85, Rolfyboy6, Pandora, jk, Unstable Isotope, msl, Lahdee, TeresaInPa, John Campanelli, ZoBai, xynz, fahra, HarveyMilk, frisco, blogswarm, the OTHER rasmussen, BenGoshi, sardonyx, HeavyJ, Eternal Hope, RubDMC, eyeswideopen, Disgusted in St Louis, Jon B Good, tyler93023, rwsab, Xeno of Elia, PaintyKat, Cautiously Optimistic, landrew, Wee Mama, Mary Julia, nyceve, SecondComing, rhp, ask, Morague, jerseycorn, boilerman10, buckhorn okie, mrblifil, vmibran, roses, LeftofArizona, javelina, peraspera, marylrgn, L0kI, MJB, itskevin, Gonzophile, splashy, David Boyle, high uintas, Georgia Logothetis, Pachacutec, wader, Mauimom, kharma, Barbara Morrill, milofischi, DeadB0y, missliberties, brainwave, Boppy, lezlie, Nina, besieged by bush, atomicBirdsong, Caldonia, Red Wind, niteskolar, ArcXIX, nika7k, Calidrissp, rockhound, RebeccaG, Liberaljentaps, Democratic Hawk, LayedBackGuy, nasarius, fugue, airshipjones, kfred, poemworld, rickeagle, rolet, rickroks, iliketodrum, sxwarren, MichDeb, vcmvo2, jonathan94002, Skennet Boch, davidincleveland, Fabian, Bluesee, pop tart, jfdunphy, Lefty the playwright, Erik the Red, Paul Goodman, Jashugan, Militarytracy, KnotIookin, Fire Dog Lake, owlbear1, Sun Tzu, concerned, EconAtheist, RedCharlie, eastvan, John DE, GreyHawk, sofia, Overseas, annefrank, Phil S 33, Natalie, lasky57, sunbro, demmefatale, paxpdx, The Raven, wiscmass, dsteffen, Cory Bantic, Rogneid, Ghost of Frank Zappa, JPete, mightymouse, jay23, Reality Bites Back, makeitstop, occams hatchet, gwilson, Nightprowlkitty, Compound F, vigilant meerkat, tsallen, BlueInARedState, leo joad, tonyahky, Arabiflora, martyc35, InsultComicDog, buhdydharma, Ohio 2nd, isis2, quinque, Irishkorean, CAL11 voter, TalkieToaster, birdbrain64, brainchild105, Leila, Potus2020, nowheredesign, bunk, myrealname, Unitary Moonbat, BarbaraB, middleagedhousewife, profh, vtpeace, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, va dare, Snarcalita, Granny Doc, kidneystones, 73rd virgin, McSnatherson, khereva, Cronesense, possum, Mr Met, outofit, Fist of the North Star, RJuna, lalolola

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site