Meet Ned Lamont: Greenwich Millionaire

I am very happy this morning to see the results of the latest Quinnipiac poll on the Democratic Senate primary race.  Greenwich millionaire businessman Ned Lamont has decisively pulled ahead of veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman.  As is my usual habit on hearing this kind of news, I wallowed in the glow of the wire reports.  

But something struck me as not quite right.  There seemed to be a strange anti-Lamont feel to the articles.

(crosspost from MyDD)

From the New York Times:

Facing his first serious challenge in 18 years as a senator, Mr. Lieberman has sought to brand Mr. Lamont as a wealthy dilettante who is trying to buy his way into office, and who is out of touch with ordinary Americans. One of Mr. Lieberman's first advertisements began: "Meet Ned Lamont. He's a Greenwich millionaire."

It seems that the Lieberman's latest desperate strategy is to dismiss Ned as a "millionaire."  And I understand why, I mean could anyone imagine a millionaire being elected to the US Senate?

All these stories are covering a new Quinnipiac poll.  Note the straight up descriptive intro's to the two candidates:

Momentum for Ned Lamont, the anti-war Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate, increases as he rolls to a 54 - 41 percent lead over incumbent Sen. Joseph Lieberman among likely Democratic primary voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

That seems pretty fair.  Ned is an anti-war US Senate candidate, and Joe is an incumbent.  

But this is how the poll is being reported in the "mainstream" media:

Hartford Courant: "Millionaire businessman Ned Lamont, a political novice fueled by deep pockets and voters' outrage over the Iraq war, has extended his lead over veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman less than a week before Connecticut's Democratic primary, according to a new poll released Thursday."

CNN, via AP: "Millionaire businessman Ned Lamont opened a double-digit lead over veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman less than a week before Connecticut's Democratic primary, according to a poll released Thursday."

MSNBC, via same:  "Millionaire businessman Ned Lamont opened a double-digit lead over veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman less than a week before Connecticut's Democratic primary, according to a poll released Thursday."

It seems that Joe's anti-Ned ad campaign was quite successful in defining who Ned Lamont is.  I think that I would rather vote for a veteran than a millionaire businessman.  

UPDATE: Hartford Courant has update their article: "Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, a political novice fueled by deep pockets and voters' outrage over the Iraq war, has extended his lead over veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman less than a week before Connecticut's Democratic primary, according to a new poll released Thursday."

•  And Lieberman isn't a millionaire?

  Practically everyone elected to a day job in the U. S. Capitol is.

  by corvo on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:17:38 AM PDT

  •  ha

    That was what was so funny about Bush's minions pointing out the size of Kerry's pocketbook.

    by AggieDemocrat on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:47:48 AM PDT

    •  It was his wife's money and NOT his.

      It's telling that those white old male Republicans think that a woman automatically would give her money to her husband.  They want to return to the 1600s.  

      Meanwhile the idiot has millions of dollars in trust that he inherited and never worked a day in his life.  He was always bailed out by his daddy's friends.  Who is going to bail us out?

      by kaye on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:05:27 AM PDT

•  My first DKos Diary

  Hope I didnt break any rules.

  by Winston Sm1th on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:23:36 AM PDT

  •  Great diary.

    "Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, a political novice fueled by deep pockets and voters' outrage over the Iraq war, has extended his lead over veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman less than a week before Connecticut's Democratic primary, according to a new poll released Thursday."

    When I read that this morning, I nearly lost it. Fueled by deep pockets? Yeah right.

    by Yoss on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:25:11 AM PDT

  •  I'm a bit confused

    Do you know how it's even possible for there to be 10 senators (per the CNN article) with net worths below $100k?  Just a single year of a senator's salary alone would push them over that amount.  What am I overlooking?

    by JBNathan85 on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:29:47 AM PDT

    •  The ten

      They must be big spenders

      by herodotus on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:36:58 AM PDT

      •  Bill Bennet types... (n/t)

        by nicejoest on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:40:14 AM PDT

    •  salary doesn't equal net worth

      It doesn't contribute to your "worth" if you spend it as soon as you get it.  They are probably renting in DC, and don't have much equity in their home-district houses.  My net worth is negative, even though I make a good salary.

      by cardinal on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:53:14 AM PDT

      •  thanks

        I wasn't thinking about the differences in a senator's lifestyle compared to everyone else's with most of the money going into a mortgage and savings and such (if you're lucky and make enough for such things) with just a relatively small amount of that 150k being sunk on groceries and utilities.  Paying rent on another house in a place like DC must be especially painful.

        by JBNathan85 on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:10:17 AM PDT

      •  Lieberman Financial Disclosure

        All members of Congress are required to publicly file annual financial disclosure reports.  Here's the one for Lieberman for 2005 (dated May 11, 2006).  All I've been able to locate so far for Lamont is this Boston Globe story on his disclosure report.  As a general rule, reports for non-incumbents aren't scanned and maintained by any centralized website, though Lamont's would be available via the Senate public records office.

        by The Maven on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:13:10 AM PDT

•  I would rather have an honest millionaire

  in office who does not need the sweet perks that lobbyists bestow on congressmen/women. And therefore would be less likely to be influenced by corporations.

  And I just saw an article about Loserman just passed $10 million in his campaign fund raising. I'm sure the donation list reads like a who's who of Fortune 500 companies.

  by CitizenOfEarth on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:26:22 AM PDT

•  millionaire vs millionaire?

  at least it would be accurate.

  or what steven colbert said, "democrat joe lieberman, my favorite republican."

  by skyesNYC on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:26:24 AM PDT

•  Millionaires

  How many senators aren't?  When Bernie Sanders gets there, they'll probably treat him like the hired help.

  by Paleo on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:28:35 AM PDT

•  'Veteran'

    Presumably what they mean by that is "incumbent".  But it makes it sound like Joe Lieberman is a military veteran.

    Joseph Lieberman never served a single day in the military in his life.  This is one factor that makes it easy for him to vote to send others who do serve in the military to their deaths.

  by WIds on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:31:18 AM PDT

  •  yeah

    That floored me when I read it in the Hartford Courant.  That paper endorsed Lieberman, and the article, since updated, was grossly anti-Lamont, a regurgitation Lieberman's negative ads.  

    But reading the same descriptors at CNN and MSNBC ("Millionaire" and "veteran") was a little too much.  

    by Winston Sm1th on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:38:48 AM PDT

•  i noticed that too..

  kerry was rich. bush was poor.

  same story there

  by AmericanHope on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:35:17 AM PDT

  •  My grandma

    voted for Bush because she didn't think it was right that Kerry got all that money from his wife. Apparently it was okay that Bush got all his money from his grandpa. Wierd.

    by Albatross on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:40:47 AM PDT

    •  and the Saudis (n/t)

      by Winston Sm1th on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:47:38 AM PDT

•  Horserace

  Political reporters want races to be as close as possible; it sells more papers, makes the stories more interesting.

  Now that Lamont has the momentum, they want to push him down. When he had "no chance", all the press was positive.

  I don't even think it's a conscious effort for them most of the time.

  by The Cunctator on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:39:21 AM PDT

•  Okay. I'm 100% behind Ned Lamont.

  And I think Lieberman is a millionaire too. His house is probably worth a million alone.

  But I really, really would love to see more "ordinary folks" in the senate. And running for the presidency.

  We need more women, more racial minorities, and more people of humble circumstances in our government.

  Fewer rich white men, especially those who have inherited their wealth and status.

  I'm glad to see netroots has helped some (seemingly) "ordinary folks" get involved in politics.

  Disclaimer 1: Of course, Bush is the archetype of the problem I have described: rich, white, inherited, family connections...

  Disclaimer 2: When I say "ordinary folks" I do NOT mean someone who pretends to be "ordinary" by putting on a hick accent like Bush.

  by nicejoest on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:39:38 AM PDT

  •  Lieberman's Net worth

    Not all of Lieberman's houses are worth over a million.  

    by Winston Sm1th on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:42:07 AM PDT

  •  Greenwich Millionaires

    I can't swing a baseball bat in Greenwich without swinging and hitting a Greenwich millionaire.  Unless you have a dinky house in Byram, which is the Greenwich Ghetto, the land alone is worth over a million minimum.

    by DisNoir36 on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:16:07 AM PDT

•  I think Lamont looks a lot like Jimmy Stewart

  in Mr. Smith goes to Washington.

  By the way, I think Lieberman is probably a millionaire too, probably even a multi-millionaire.  There really aren't that many people in the Senate who don't have at least a million in assets alone.  His wife's job at Hill and Knowlton probably pays about half a million a year.  So...

  by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:40:14 AM PDT

  •  UPDATE on Millionaire Lieberman!

    Here is a story from 2003 (thanks GOP) about the millionaires in the Senate.

    Millionaires populate U.S. Senate Kerry, Rockefeller, Kohl among the wealthiest

    Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut had an estimated net worth of $482,000 to $1.8 million.

    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:02:23 AM PDT

    •  What about

      his wife?

      by DisNoir36 on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:17:49 AM PDT

      •  I have no idea.

        That was all I could find from the GOP attacks on Democrats with money prior to the 2004 election.  Her net wealth may or may not be counted as part of his estate.  Kerry's net wealth was a big lie as that was his wife's money not his, but at that point the GOP weren't targeting Lieberman.

        by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:21:56 AM PDT

•  Millionaire Lamont is voter's choice ...

  ... to fight policies of Millionaire President, Millionaire Vice-President, Millionaire Defense Secretary, Millionaire Secretary of State and other Cabinet Millionaires.

  by highfive on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:40:15 AM PDT

  •  Hey, you go to Congress

    with the millionaires you have, not the millionaires you want . . .

    by corvo on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:42:57 AM PDT

•  In the northeast, it doesn't mean a thing

  Here in New Jersey, we already went through the whole "millionaire-trying-to-buy-a-Senate-seat" debate with Corzine. The counter-argument to it, is, of course, that a millionaire is his own man (or woman) and doesn't need to sell his vote.

  It worked so well against Corzine that he gave up his Senate seat for his successful gubernatorial bid. I doubt that Connecticut residents are any more anti-success than New Jerseyans.

  by Louise on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:41:41 AM PDT

•  Just for the Record

  The NYT story cited here is not covering the Quinnipiac poll, as implied in the diary.  If one looks at the date of the story, it's clear that it was written yesterday (appearing in today's print edition), well before the Q-poll came out.  The website for the Times currently has a separate AP story on the poll results.

  As I read the NYT story on Lamont's background, explaining where his wealth came from, I thought it sounded pretty positive, since it makes clear that the bulk of his money (as opposed to that of his wife) comes from a business that offers low-cost alternatives to local cable services.  No one I know would ever think that their cable company ought to remain an unchallenged monopoly, so Lamont would be the face of competition.  If anything, he could probably use it to his advantage, if he wanted to, although it's clear he doesn't want to make it a point of emphasis.

  by The Maven on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:44:27 AM PDT

  •  Did not mean to imply that it was

    It was an intro to Lieberman's negative strategy, repeated so diligently in the press cited.

    by Winston Sm1th on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:50:22 AM PDT

•  For a bit of wartime perspective,

  the bombing of Lebanon has ripped up the infrastructure of a country about 3/4 the size of the state of Connecticut. See CIA Factbook.

  by jfdunphy on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:47:17 AM PDT

•  More 'insider' shinanigans by no-go-joe-mentum

  Exactly the point.  Lieberman is tied in too tightly with the "not-listening-presumptuous-foxnews-establishment-washington-bubble" when We the People want real change.

  by smartcookienyc on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:53:49 AM PDT

•  meh

  I know everyone wants to see bias, but it's really not that big of a deal.  Every candidate is identified by some pithy description (journalistic convention -- laziness, if you will).  What else would they call Lamont?  "6-foot-tall husband who apparently cooks a good lasagna"?  He's a millionaire businessman -- that's his claim to fame.  It could be worse.

  They do the same when rich Republicans run (I don't think a single story was ever done about Michael Huffington without mentioning his wealth).

  by cardinal on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:57:20 AM PDT

  •  Exactly

    I can think of worse adjectives to be tagged with.  If 'millionaire' is the "worst" that Holy Joe can come up with for Ned, Joe lost it from the get-go.

    For me, any person who is a millionaire, is not doing himself any financial favors by running for office.  The salary just ain't that good in comparison.

    by Terre on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:05:22 AM PDT

  •  I dont think its gonna change votes

    But the negative descriptor was right outta Leiberman's negative ads.  Whoever defines the narrative will win the elections.  

    I thought Lamont's claim to fame is that he is a competent political novice who has so successfully tapped into anti-war sentiment that he now has a commanding lead in primary polls.  

    See the WaPo article cited below for a fair presentation.  

    by Winston Sm1th on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:16:30 AM PDT

  •  not to be snarky or anything...

    but how about "Primary Challenger Ned Lamont" or "Democratic Candidate for Senate Ned Lamont" or "Businessman Ned Lamont" or even "Former School teacher Ned Lamont?"

    I don't think it is overwhelming bias, but come on, we aren't just digging for something that isn't there.  Virtually every story I have read leads with "Millionaire" like it is the only thing that defines Lamont.  It promotes the appearance that he has nothing going for him but a pile of money to use to buy an election, and we all know that is bunk.

    by Sean in Motion on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:40:05 AM PDT

    •  good point, though

      . . .some would argue that being a millionaire is a cue for being a successful businessman.  But perhaps that doesn't play as well in a Dem primary.

      by cardinal on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:46:26 AM PDT

•  Not a word about 'millionaire'

  in this WaPo article commenting on the Quinnipiac poll.

  Besides the nice show of numbers here's the graf I liked:

  Lieberman has been rolling through the state on his green campaign bus, dubbed "Joe's Tomorrow Tour," stopping at senior citizen centers, diners, restaurants, markets, construction sites and retail outlets. But he has been met by small crowds and minimal enthusiasm, save for some of his old friends in organized labor and among local elected officials.

  by Terre on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:00:08 AM PDT

•  in a way, sad

  In a way it is sad that even with "netroots" and quite lively progressive organizations on the ground in CT, no one would have a prayer agaist the least popular entrenched incumbent in the country without self-financing.

  I am not without guilt, because I did not contribute any money to Lamont.

  Thus it is highly non-random that Lieberman is challenged by a millionaire.  After that admission, I guess that other facts are glaringly clear to people on CT:

  • Lieberman spends much more money that his challenger, so it would be ridiculous to moan about "unfair advantage"
  • Lieberman is not an anti-corporate fighter for the little peple facing a millionaire with a self-serving agenda
  • Connecticut is not a hotbed of resentment against "the rich", or "latte swilling elites" etc.  CT is a place where "East Coast elites" live.

  by Piotr on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:02:58 AM PDT

•  The NYT article. . .

  Confirms that Ned Lamont is a most decent and caring man.

  by Lords on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:07:27 AM PDT

•  Of course...

  much of the mainstream media is going to go with Lieberman's spin. Joe has not spent the past 15 years with his lips attached to their asses for nothing.

  by rebop on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:19:18 AM PDT

•  Ned's a millionaire. So?

  It's an old political jape to refer to the Senate as a millionaires' club, and it's a little late to say we shouldn't have people of wealth in the Senate--the 17th Amendment saw to that. That makes the adjective irrelevant, the way I see it. Yet there it is, the very first word in the lead. Silliness.

  by ticket punch on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:29:18 AM PDT

•  Completely Agree

  I guess I shouldn't be, but I am consistently amazed at the number of times I have read the "Millionaire Ned Lamont" tag or some variation of it in stories, not just recently but over the last month or more. I'm sure if it was possible, they'd lead with "Baby slayer and Democratic Party Killing Millionaire Ned Lamont..."  but they decided Millionaire was good enough.  Also have noticed it is Millionaire Ned versus "veteran" Joe or something to that effect.  It is just so blatantly slanted.  Subtlety is lost on these folks.  

  by Sean in Motion on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:32:58 AM PDT

•  AP has disgusted me lately.

  The horribly biased coverage of the Mexico street protests was really outrageous.  Every adjective they used to describe the situation was negative -- "paralyzing the finacial district," "choking" the traffic, "occupying" the streets.

  The right-wing bias in the corporate media is often not overt partisan declarations but a much more subtle picture-painting by selecting adjectives like this.

  by Loquatrix on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:50:28 AM PDT

•  I really don't care how rich Senators are

  as long as they vote for the interests of the entire people, and not just their rich friends.

  by Big River Bandido on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:50:32 AM PDT

•  Local NPR story

  Primary between "Businessman Ned Lamont and Senator Joe Lieberman."

  I guess that's not SO bad, since it's just a description of their job titles.  But I still do find it biased the way they label Ned.

  by jacquirenee on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:58:32 AM PDT

•  Is Lieberman on section 8 housing?

  Seriously, are Joe and Hadassah busy with New Haven Social Services to try to get WIC for Hadassah?  I mean, we know that pharmaceutical lobbyists married to 3-term senators from the wealthiest state in the country don't make jack, do they?

  I feel bad for the Liebermans.  This is a link to New Haven area local Goodwill and Salvation Army thirft store resources to help the Liebermans meet their budget.  

  Keep hope alive, Joe!

  by tbrucegodfrey on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 09:05:13 AM PDT

•  Hi Winston

  when i read your diary, i posted about it at ned's blog, and requested them to immediately contact Courant and other papers, and ask them change is to a neutral reference.

  Not sure if they did, or did so because of the prompt (or from noticing the diary itself), but the Courant update came through within a couple of hours as you noted.

  Good job.

  We'll partner on keeping media in check when Al jumps in the race! OK? :)

  by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 03:07:53 AM PDT

  •  cool thanks man nt

    by Winston Sm1th on Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 02:14:24 PM PDT