Who's Responsible for the Lieberman Meltdown?
Can we please put to rest the idea that Ned Lamont’s challenge to Senator Lieberman is a product of, or a wholly-owned subsidiary of, that thing called “the netroots.” (Without, in so doing, disparaging or minimizing the netroots themselves.)
Yes, a lot of nationally prominent liberal bloggers are enthusiastic about the Lamont challenge.
They’ve presumably helped raise some money (the thing he needs least, but the only gesture of support available to most people outside the state) and perhaps have generated some volunteers, including a number of bloggers themselves, notably Jane Hamsher. And a number of fabulous Connecticut-based blogs are central to the internal and external communications around the Lamont campaign. But that’s true of every successful campaign today, left, right and center, and in either major party. (The centrist Democratic Senate candidate in Missouri, for example, Claire McCaskill, is backed by almost as impressive a group of Show-Me-State blogs as Lamont is by Nutmeg blogs.)
The plausibility of the Lamont campaign is attributable to two major things, none of which have anything to do with Markos Moulitsas or his loyal minions:
[UPDATE: It seems not to have been clear that the reference to "loyal minions" was ironic. And it should be noted that neither Kos nor other bloggers make any claim to have created the Lamont campaign.]
1. Decades of statewide progressive organizing in the state. Lamont’s campaign manager is no blogger, but Tom Swan, who left his job as head of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG) to run the campaign. According to one of the Connecticut blogs I mentioned above, much of the CCAG staff has also quit or taken a leave to help Lamont. CCAG got its start before even Al Gore had heard of the Internet, in the same year that Lieberman won his first primary - 1970 - and from the same impulses that created the reformist/anti-war Caucus of Connecticut Democrats in which Lieberman was active.
[UPDATE: I've been reliably informed that only two CCAG staffers, including Swan, have actually taken leave for the Lamont campaign, so the office is still doing it's thing. A number of former CCAG staffers and allies, however, are active in supporting Lamont.]
CCAG has had its ups and downs over the decades, but it is one of a very few multi-issue progressive groups of that era to have survived. A related group, the Legislative Electoral Action Program (LEAP) was very successful at getting progressives elected to the state legislature, many of whom are still there. CCAG has had a very successful last couple of years, most notably in winning passage of the state’s public financing law for campaigns, the first such “clean money” law to be passed through a legislature rather than by voter initiative. It takes a lot of skill and political savvy to get a legislature to back a proposal with low political salience that most politicians view as a threat. (That is, they would like to bury it and expect they can get away with it.) The Lamont campaign is coming off the energy and lessons learned of that victory.
You could imagine a challenge like Lamont’s emerging without the “netroots,” although they certainly drive a lot of the enthusiasm. You couldn’t imagine it without politically savvy, experienced organizers like Swan, with a base in a long-term, multi-issue progressive coalition that has allies and experience and understands the state. And anyone thinking about how to build structures and parties that can win elections against Republicans needs to understand this as well.
2. The fact that Lieberman has run, so far, the second most embarrassingly bad campaign of the year. (The worst campaign’s entire staff just quit, so there may be an opening to move up.) The fact is that there’s been a lot of latent discontent with Lieberman in the state at least since his speech about Monica Lewinsky, but as recently as a few months ago, his approval rating among Democrats was solidly in the low 70’s, indistinguishable from his support among Independents and Republicans. (This is an important point, by the way: A good portion of Republicans and Independents in Connecticut are more liberal than the average registered Democrat, and his support among those groups could prove just as soft as his Democratic support.) Lieberman could easily have restored his bond with Connecticut Democrats, or at least enough to be sure of winning a primary. I could have written that speech or that ad, and I would have done it, too, before he said “we criticize our commander-in-chief at our own peril.” It would involve a much stronger condemnation of Bush’s conduct of the war, a heartfelt acknowledgement of respect for opponents of the war and for the legitimacy of dissent, and a message that, wherever anyone stood in 2003, now we have a crisis on the ground in Iraq and have to work together - and with Republicans -- to get it right and get out. (If he couldn’t in good conscience say those things, then he’s got bigger problems.) The war is not the only issue driving opposition to Lieberman, of course, but it is the great question of our time and if he could defuse it somewhat as an issue, the opposition doesn’t have that much to work with.
Instead, for whatever reason, he chose to act petulant about the fact that anyone would oppose him at all, which is not the right response for a democrat, much less a Democrat; produce a series of comically inept ads, and shrink himself into a sort of suburban-mensch version of Al D’Amato : “I saved 3,000 jobs at Electric Boat in Groton.” “I voted for the energy bill because we got $800 million for energy conservation in Connecticut.” (Large forces have been unleashed in our politics, and a national figure like Lieberman should be seen as confronting those questions, not selling out for petty earmarks.) And finally, by taking out the “insurance policy” of running under a party named after himself, he highlighted every one of his own negatives and virtually ensured his defeat in the primary, with a very good chance that the independent candidacy will fizzle as well.
So let’s credit the netroots for what they do well - generate enthusiasm, force the big questions onto the agenda, generate a new definition of what it means to be a Democrat. But by themselves they can’t create a viable candidacy or bring down a popular three-term incumbent. Only organizing and the incumbent’s own mistakes can do that.
[UPDATE: A final comment: A number of commenters have pointed out that it is the Democratic voters of Connecticut who have turned against Lieberman, and that's more important than state-based organizing or netroots. And of course that's true, or we'll find out if it's true in a few weeks. But some forces came together to turn the latent dislike of Lieberman that was hiding behind 70% approval into a real vulnerability, and that's all I'm trying to identify here.]
Of course it isn't the blogs. Lamont is polling over 40%. There aren't enough bloggers or blog readers in Connecticut to produce such numbers. Lieberman's problems are far deeper than being opposed by Dailykos.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 13, 2006 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The background on grassroots activists in Connecticut is something that every other writer on this subject has missed, so nice piece of work. Where I take issue with your analysis is on your netroots observations. First, you seem to have fallen into the trap of believing that Markos Moulitsas has "loyal minions". Markos doesn't have minions anymore than TPM Cafe has minions. Those of us who use these sites to read and share opinions are using the blogs simply as space for a town meeting. Daily Kos is just a conduit, as are all the other blog sites. Secondly, the impact of the netroots is not in being the netroots; it is in giving voice to the thoughts of Americans everywhere who are simply fed up with politicians who repeatedly place the interests of corporate campaign lobbyists and contributors above the interest of the voters they are supposed to represent. Lieberman is one of the most extreme examples of a politician who cares more about himself than his constituents, but there are others. Bloggers are merely the "Harry Taylors". They may be the ones who stand up in a crowd and speak out, but that doesn't mean that their thoughts aren't widely shared by others who may be less comfortable expressing their opinions as openly. The blogs, whether left-leaning or right-leaning are the pulse of politics, whether netroots, grassroots or just average voter.
July 14, 2006 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on now, Mark. Let's not dispel the myth that blogofascist Markos is calling all the shots.
It makes for such good copy.
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
July 14, 2006 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like your analysis. It is still possible that the blog crowd had an impact. It appears that mainstream politicians may be a little bit spooked. We have been painted as thuggish and dangerously left, certainly repugnant to a triangulator. He could have seen our interest in the race, and like a man in a swamp upon seeing a lizard, stepped back into the mire. Fear, it seems to me, is incompatible with reasonable thought.
To know all is to forgive all. (Mme de Stael)
July 14, 2006 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it's not just the netroots. You couldn't find any of the prominent bloggers who would say so. As Markos has repeatedly said, all the netroots can do is generate some buzz. You still have to have a solid candidate, good organization, and issues to run on.
It's actually the other way around. This race is making the netroots the face of wide-spread dissatisfaction with the DC Democrats. The media needs an actor to represent that dissatisfaction and the most obvious is the liberal blogosphere. We (yes, we--I regard myself as part of the liberal blogosphere) were out in front on this race early, despite the extreme long shot that it was, early. (Who could have known that Lieberman couldn't run a campaign?)
But, believe me, there is no illusion that the netroots alone elect candidates. It's effective at energizing already committed people, and it eliminates the sense of being all alone in your unhappiness with the established players. In that sense it empowers people. The netroots have also done things like demolish inaccurate ads, like the Lieberman's fake bumper sticker. But the idiocy of running that ad is way more important than it's falsity, or the arrogant decision to name the independent party "Connecticut for Lieberman."
At the heart of it, these campaigns are won in the traditional ways. The netroots may get more people engaged, but that engagement will still be volunteering, giving money, and showing up on election day. Markos knows that. Jane knows that--that's why she's there.
July 14, 2006 6:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
If only netroots people were opposing Lieberman, he really wouldn't have a problem. His opponent is paying for his own campaign, unlike the Howard Dean situation
(who had his campaign killed by the power of MSM repaying a videotape of one event over a million times, a factor that could not be overcome by netroots).
Lieberman can't grasp that his "one issue" encompasses a wide variety of ills. Isreal can be unrestrained in it's reponse to soldier kidnappings because of US involvement in Iraq and the administrations belief imprisonment without trial and survellance programs are justified in fighting terrorists. The ability of the US to chastize Isreal is nil. The inabilty to curb Isreal's military leads to Iran and Syria talking to each other about the possibility of military responses, destabilizing the region further. Isreal's strikes into southern Lebanon will continue, as the US doesn't even send a representative to attempt to quell the violence.
The flareup in the middle East results in $80 a barrel oil and higher gas prices. Higher gas prices lead to increased cost of other goods, putting further economic stress on the middle-class.
Isreal's strikes into Gaza and Lebanon and fly-overs of Syria produce images that in the Middle East serve as recruitment ads for Muslim fundamentalists, possibly making the US less secure.
A US response to Iran's nuclear missle program becomes problematic given the troop deployments in Iraq.
The committment to Iraq also diverted attention from other hot spots like North Korea allowing continued pursuit of a missle delivery system they felt free to test on the Fourth of July without fear of reprisal from a US diverted by Iraq.
Lieberman's plight on the "one issue" is that it impacts national security, the economy, and the likelihood that a multinational Arab vs. Isreal war could occur.
Lieberman fails to realize that despite a lowered deficit (now only the 4th largest in history) and a "booming" economy, many feel their world is less secure and more economically unstable. They see an increasingly angry Muslim population worldwide with more terrorists being created every day, and $100 a barrel oil in the future. Iraq is at the core of the unease felt by the voting public (most of whom don't know or care about netroots).
July 14, 2006 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The significance of Swan's and CCAG staffers backing is huge. Consider the Dean campaign, which went into the Iowa caucuses with busloads of eager folk, often who gathered at meet ups and other blog and web-inspired get togethers, but who, according to many reports, didn't quite know how to work caucuses and get out the Dean vote.
So Dean did wonders raising money and issues using the WWW, and that's helping Lamont to an extent. But the advantage of having a committed --local-- progressive infrastructure to ring doorbells, make phone calls, find their supporters and get them to the poles on primary day, that's what will put this over the top.
It's come down to Lieberman's union support and party support versus Swan's and colleague's ability to organize and get out their vote.
From people I know in Connecticut, Lieberman's union support is official from the leadership, but may be soft among the rank and file, and the party support is obviously fractured.
Lieberman's running uphill on ball bearings that are rolling down. Look for him to slip.
July 14, 2006 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there's also an obvious counterintuitive argument to refute the idiotic contention that the netroots are bringing down Lieberman...
If the netroots were so strong, so effective, and so hostile to the DC establishment, how come Lieberman is the only Dem incumbent on the ropes?
Fact is, as you say, Lamont is supremely well organized and is connecting with Connecticut voters. Lieberman, meanwhile, is a walking disaster zone.
And correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Howard Dean's 50 state strategy all about connecting with voters through robust grass-roots organization... just as Lamont has done. So any chance that Lieberman-Lamont is not only a fight on policy issues, but also on Democratic electoral strategy?
July 14, 2006 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Mr Schmitt, without the "netroots" storyline and the "principled war stand of tailgunner Joe", wouldn't reporters and commentators have to discuss issues? How quaint.
July 14, 2006 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re Mark's "loyal minions" remark: I may be wrong, but you might want to check whether your irony detectors are still functioning.
July 14, 2006 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"And correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Howard Dean's 50 state strategy all about connecting with voters through robust grass-roots organization"
You're sorta wrong.
Dean's strategy is about connecting with Democratic activists, not about connecting with the larger group of voters necessary to win general elections.
Energizing the activists isn't a bad long-term strategy for the party, as long as it doesn't drive the party in counterproductive directions, of course. But one shouldn't confuse activists with the larger group of voters.
"If the netroots were so strong, so effective, and so hostile to the DC establishment, how come Lieberman is the only Dem incumbent on the ropes?"
Because the netroots were founded by opposition to the war, and they continue to be primarily driven by opposition to the war. And because Holy Joe is the only Dem incumbent fundamentally on the same page as Bush on the war.
Hence, this August we get to witness the Perfect Storm Part Deux.
July 14, 2006 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Watching Lieberman implode is a case study on the dangers of incumbency. It can't be more obvious that Lieberman wasn't expecting a primary challenge based on what I've seen from his campaign thus far.
If Lieberman loses the primary - and that's STILL a big "if" based on the flurry of head-scratching endorsements he's racking up - this should serve as a wake-up call to the entrenched imcumbents in Washington that sooner or later, they need to revisit & reconnect with the voters who sent them to Washington in the first place. Imperial arrogance isn't enough to get re-elected.
July 14, 2006 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good job of demolishing the strawman you set up in your first paragraph.
Outside of some clueless reporters desperately searching for a hook, is there anyone who seriously thinks Lamont is fully the creation of the netroots?
Your last paragraph is good, but states the obvious: A lot of factors all have to align perfectly for a successful challenge to a three-term incumbent.
Who woulda thunk it?
July 14, 2006 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark
Do you believe the flare up in the Middle East will have any impact on the Lieberman Lamont race?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
July 14, 2006 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I could be wrong, of course, but irony on the net usually comes in quotes, as your comment itself shows.
July 14, 2006 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
My irony does not always come with quotes, as in this case.
July 14, 2006 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"And finally, by taking out the “insurance policy” of running under a party named after himself, he highlighted every one of his own negatives and virtually ensured his defeat in the primary"
If you really think he's virtually ensured to go down to defeat, you ought to go make some easy money on your handicapping ability. Lieberman is currently a 70-30 favorite at TradeSports, which means you could make some decent scratch betting on Lamont if you're correct.
Personally, I'd peg Lieberman's odds in the primary at a bit better than 50-50.
"with a very good chance that the independent candidacy will fizzle as well."
Now I'm getting worried about you, Mark. You're normally the smartest lefty in the room.
While multi-candidate races can obviously turn odd - a stronger Republican candidate could hurt Lieberman - I'd still bet the farm and my neighbor's farm that he gets the most votes in November. Lamont's just not a strong enough candidate to take him down in the general.
July 14, 2006 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Petey:
"Dean's strategy is about connecting with Democratic activists, not about connecting with the larger group of voters necessary to win general elections."
Is this a Petey evaluation(adduced without any comment or supporting argument) or is there literature and hyperlinks and Dean quotes we all can go to.(and why, oh why, don't I think I will get any evidence?...just a hunch I guess).
July 14, 2006 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
deleted
July 14, 2006 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Living in a state next door to CT, I can honestly say that the Lamont-iac boo-yah is the same as the Deaniac boo-yah from '04, indicative of nothing other than the fact that the disconnect of the 'net roots is as deep and wide as it was a few years back. They still can't fathom the fact that their rarified selves couldn't coerce Iowans into falling into line.
Lamont might be polling in the low 40s, but Lieberman is polling at 55%.
Onto Lamont, in the debate he was a joke. Even some neo-progs are thinking of defecting because he seemed a little too eager to pull the trigger re: North Korea, lol! From what I hear, the general consensus is he is anti-Bush, there's alot more to be concerned with regarding the damage Bush has done that Lamont has no plan for. For all the wonking that Lieberman seems to feel "entitled", the general consensus seems to be saying that Lamont acts as though he feels a sense of entitlement to buy his way from Greenwich to the Senate.. he like Bush is viewed as all hat, no cattle.
The claims that saving 3,000 jobs at Electric Boat is a non-issue is at odds with the fact that for 3,000 workers and their families those jobs mean everything.. the difference between life and death.. not that the 'net roots have any comprehension as to that reality. Their chickenhawk machinations are as striking as that of Bush ops like Karl Rove, though I'm sure they're in denial of the fact.. armchair warriors sitting in the safety of their living rooms.
July 14, 2006 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Petey
"Because the netroots were founded by opposition to the war"
and to think I subscribe to Main stream media when I can get all their malarkey served cold right here.
July 14, 2006 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
One issue in this situation, which really makes me wonder is this notion incumbents have that they're entitled to these seats. We have moved so far from an elective office being an honour and duty to serve to these offices being lifetime careers with job protection and any challenge is seen as nefarious forces planning a management coup by ousting the v.p. of operations from his regional territory.
Office holders aren't hired by citizens to run the business of the country, they're elected by citizens and bestowed with the honour of representing their fellow citizens in a government by, for and of the people. What we seem to have allowed to be created is a career opportunity with benefits, pensions and no mechanism to fire a bad employee. Not only are we at a point where we're providing lifetime employment, we've also created a class that not only thinks the office is an entitlement, but is hereditary.
July 14, 2006 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It can't be more obvious that Lieberman wasn't expecting a primary challenge based on what I've seen from his campaign thus far."
I think he's been expecting a primary challenge since late 2003, although I'd bet he's surprised at the strength of it.
He's apparently been warning his fundraising sources about it for quite a while, and I knew a primary was coming in late 2003 simply from reading Daily Kos.
July 14, 2006 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Living in a state next door to CT, I can honestly say that the Lamont-iac boo-yah is the same as the Deaniac boo-yah from '04, indicative of nothing other than the fact that the disconnect of the 'net roots is as deep and wide as it was a few years back. They still can't fathom the fact that their rarified selves couldn't coerce Iowans into falling into line."
While I partially agree with you - I think Lieberman is almost definitely going to be re-elected in November - I do think the 8/8 primary is a much better shot for the netroots than anything they had in '04.
Lieberman's indefensibility really is what makes 8/8 a tossup.
I'd vote for Lieberman in the primary if I were a Nutmegger because I'm a Big Tent Democrat, but good lord, I don't like Holy Joe.
Jon Chait, the guy who wrote the quite wonderful Dean-o-phobe for TNR in '04, has written a couple of op-eds calling for re-electing Lieberman which are notable for his unwillingness to defend him.
July 14, 2006 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neither the netroots nor Dean nor Bush's atrocious presidency are a panacea for the illnesses of the instutition of the Democratic Party. But the emergence of progressive activists who, for the first time in decades want to organize, make common cause with other activists, and build a party that can attract more voters is a big deal. That's why the Lamont campaign titillates bloggers, not opposition to Bush or the war.
July 14, 2006 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you reckon Howard Dean is busy investing in activists who he knows won't connect with voters; and you reckon MoveOn was founded in opposition to the Iraq War.
Nuff said.
July 14, 2006 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also live next to CT and I can't find anything to agree with in Mary's post. She seems to think that a 55% poll for a three-term incumbent is a sign of strength. Those are terrible figures in a world where most incumbents have no primary opposition at all, and where many incumbents face no challenge in the national elections in November.
If Lamont had done as poorly in the debate as Mary claims, this hasn't shown in the polls. One would have expected Lamont to plummet and Lieberman to soar. Didn't happen, won't happen.
No single job is a life and death situation. Having a job is. Thinking like this is one of the reasons why we have an out-of-control military budget. The alliance between the arms industry, the military, and the Department of Defense has been called dangerous to democracy since Dwight David Eisenhower's Farewell Address defined the Military Industrial Complex, cf http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm. Nobody would call Eisenhower a chickenhawk.
If an industrial facility no longer serves a useful purpose the sane thing to do is to close it and assist the affected community through the transition. Newport, Rhode Island didn't fade away when the fleet left:
Today's facilities house roughly 10% of the numbers they housed at the navy's peak, and most of those remaining are involved with education and research. Newport survived the change. Should Electric Boat close, Groton and New London will survive as well, and thrive, if appropriate assistance is provided during the transition.
Comparing those who support Lamont and oppose Lieberman chickenhawks and armchair warriors is simply unproductive. It doesn't raise Lieberman's stature and it doesn't diminish Lamont's stature. So why do it? Mike
July 14, 2006 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Atrios has said exactly this at least 5 times. *yawn*
July 14, 2006 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"And I'm surprised that you could read a thoughtful post from Mark Schmitt emphasizing the importance of decades of progressive organizing and come away faulting Dean for trying to do nationwide progressive organizing."
I'm not faulting Dean for trying to organize activists. I said, with a caveat, that I thought it was a positive for the party.
And FWIW, I was responding to a comment, not to Mark's post.
"This statement is negated by your very presence on this forum. Are you fundamentally here posting about this subject because you are anti-war and Joe Lieberman is on the same page as Bush? The progressive netroots consists of people genuinely excited about talking politics..."
Well, this is an interesting point.
There are two different, but interconnected things that almost no one has been much concerned with separating.
First is the progressive blogosphere, which is what I think you are talking about above. I'm a proud member of the lefty blogosphere, and by all of our presences here, we are all activists. Josh Marshall really was one of the pioneers in this space.
Second is The Netroots™, a nexus of folks centered around Markos, Jerome, Bowers, Stoller, and a constellation of related folks. This is much more akin to a traditional Democratic interest group than what you described above, with money sloshing around and message discipline being more important than dialogue.
While there is plenty of overlap between the two groups, they really are different in fundamental ways.
No one has the terminology to discuss this stuff accurately yet, and so it remains mostly unexplored. Partly, that is because both groups have some motivation to keep the distinction unsaid. The Netroots™ wants the legitimacy of being the voice of the larger progressive blogosphere. And the progressive blogosphere is somewhat entranced by the "juice" of The Netroots™.
But eventually we'll find the right terminology to talk about this stuff.
"Neither the netroots nor Dean nor Bush's atrocious presidency are a panacea for the illnesses of the instutition of the Democratic Party. But the emergence of progressive activists who, for the first time in decades want to organize, make common cause with other activists, and build a party that can attract more voters is a big deal. "
Well, considering that Democrats' have had the minority electoral coalition for going on 40 years now, it's not a huge surprise that panaceas are hard to come by.
But I'd say a couple of things here:
Progressive activism existed before the netroots. The internet, along with the war, has grown their number somewhat, increased their visibility, and made it easier for them to organize. But they were here before, in numbers. Bill Bradley had about a third of the party with him in '00, and that campaign was spearheaded by the activist contingent of the party.
And I'd note that the last great flowering of activists in the party coincided with the Democrats' transformation from electoral majority party to electoral minority party. I'm cautiously optimistic about the surge in enthusiasm, but I'll note that it is a very sharp double-edged sword, and that it is not absolutely destined to strengthen the party.
July 14, 2006 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Petey, I've made the bet!
Just in case your spam filter snagged my email, I want to give you this link to my big anti-Lieberman piece from Ezra's site. The basic thesis is that Joe Lieberman is the kind of moderate who gives his party a radical image and that people like you who want Democrats to look moderate should oppose him.
July 14, 2006 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who's Responsible for the Lieberman Meltdown?
Joe Lieberman? Is that a good answer?
I think there's a false distinction being made here. Netroots and Activists may not always be the same persons, but there is considerable synergy between them.
My interest and involvement in politics was reawakened by the Internet. I attended Dean for America, now segued into Democracy for America, Meetups because I learned about them through the Internet, and when I get an e-mail from Howard Dean over at the Democratic National Committee I occasionally respond with a contribution to help with the 50 State Strategy. I believe in that strategy, simply because it strikes me that one can't win a game in which one isn't playing, and given the choice between slim and none I go with slim every time.
I go to Buy Blue http://www.buyblue.org/ to find out how to channel my purchases to support progressive enterprises and stay away from those which fund the right. I drop a buck or two in the campaign coffers of those who interest me and those bucks go to pay for activists. Synergy Synergy Synergy.
When both sides of the coin recognize how much they need each other perhaps they can take steps to interact even more effectively.
And when all is said and done, I get chance to have conversations about activism and communications with stimulating people like you all, courtesy of the Internet. I'm sure glad Al Gore invented it.
aMikeJuly 14, 2006 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may be right--and that's why they have elections, after all. Still, it strikes me that Joe actually losing his primary would make his third losing campaign in a row. He'd have the stench of a perennial loser about him, and his most natural constituency as an independent--folks who support the Bush Administration--could all of a sudden feel quite emboldened to vote for a Republican.
I agree that Lieberman's primary chances are still better than 50-50 but should he lose the primary I firmly believe he's a dead man walking.
July 14, 2006 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should Electric Boat close, Groton and New London will survive as well, and thrive, if appropriate assistance is provided during the transition.
Well put, however, Lieberman and most timid national Dems are opposed to "appropriate assistance" as part of their ingrained impulse to show business interests that they too are worthy of donations. It's why Joe's claims ring so hollow and, more emblematically, why so many of my Connecticut relatives who used to work manufacturing jobs in the defense sector now work as blackjack dealers and pitbosses at Foxwoods.
July 14, 2006 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your premise, but not with your throwaway judgement that Lieberman has run a poor campaign. Political observers and practitioners, especially on the Democratic side, have this weird habit of assuming that campaigns that are struggling in the polls are, ipso facto, screwing up. Not true at all. Fact is, Lamont has run a very savvy campaign and has funded it very well, far better than he promised to at the beginning (which is why many, including me, were skeptical of him).
Actually, from what I've been able to observe from 2000 miles away, Lieberman has run a smart campaign focusing on Lamont's inexperience and the fact that we don't know anything about him (Lamont's campaign has, smartly as well, been mostly about Lieberman). Fact is, in this political climate voters are skeptical of all politicians, and so whomever succeeds in making this race about the other candidate is going to win. And by the way, that silly "bear cub" ad was, near as I can tell, web only. Lieberman's actual TV ads have been far harder hitting and very solid. Check his website.
And we're not sure Lamont is going to win, either. We haven't seen a poll in ages. I suspect Lamont's momentum has stalled.
July 14, 2006 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
the case againt Joe is long.
http://www.timetogojoe.com/
July 14, 2006 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink