More on Lieberman-Lamont

by DemFromCT

There are a few local and non-local stories in the news. The big one is the money story in the Courant, documenting Lieberman's senior Senator status and the ability to bring in corporate money.

The more Lamont looks like a winner, said Swan, the more the small donors swell the coffers. He expects to raise "a couple of hundreds of thousands of dollars" more before Aug. 8.

On Wednesday alone, he said, the campaign got 100 checks from people giving small amounts. The small donations are not required to be listed in the daily filings; those contributions will be in reports filed after the primary.

The latest filings tend to mirror trends from previous months. Among them:

The local connection: Lamont continued to draw about half his large-donor money from Connecticut. Of the 24 contributions of $1,000 or more he received since July 20, 13 were from the state.

Lieberman, whose fundraising operation began much earlier than Lamont's, had been getting about 20 percent of his money from Connecticut through this spring. As of the first quarter of this year, the latest such data available, he had taken in $2.4 million from the New York City area, $1.4 million from Fairfield County and $1.2 million from Washington.

That trend has continued. On July 20 and 24, he reported receiving 143 large donations, and four had Connecticut addresses. A large number came from New York City and its suburbs.

Big money. Lieberman has been taking in six-figure sums almost every day since July 20.

Money won't decide this primary, but it will fund the GOTV drive Lieberman has hastily put together. Forbes, meanwhile, covers some of the local issues. The quotes from locals are excellent in terms of a thumb-nail:

 

"The last three times I voted for him, but I will never vote for him again," Cheryl Curtiss of West Hartford, Conn., said recently of Lieberman as she waited for primary challenger Ned Lamont to speak at a campaign fundraiser.

"The war is the big piece," said Curtiss, 52. "I don't think it can be minimized. All of our tax dollars are going there. It's killing Americans. It's killing Iraqis. We went there on lies."

Carolyn Gabel-Brett, in the same audience, said her disaffection with Lieberman began when he wouldn't support a filibuster in the Senate to prevent Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court. The senator "does not support marriage equality," she said, adding she is a lesbian who married her partner in a state-sanctioned ceremony in neighboring Massachusetts.

"I would have liked Joe to be better on the issues because I like the guy," said state Rep. Christopher G. Donovan, House majority leader and the senior elected Democrat in Connecticut to support Lamont. "But you know, you only get to vote every six years."

Let's let Broder have the last word:

From what I saw last week, this fight is a complete mismatch. The party regulars supporting Lieberman have a candidate. The rebels backing Lamont have a cause. And I came away convinced that the people with the cause are likely to win -- at least this first round.

Ignoring the (Iraq) issue won't work. Perhaps for some voters, Lieberman's three decades of constituency service -- the jobs he's saved, the grants and contracts he's helped secure -- entitle him to another term. But how many of them will be motivated enough by gratitude to vote in a mid-summer primary is uncertain. Lieberman has put out a call to friends in Washington to bolster his lagging get-out-the-vote effort, but he has little time to catch up.

For many Connecticut Democrats, the overriding motive is to send a message against the war, against the Bush administration, against Washington -- everything that Lieberman represents to them. On the night after the Clinton-Lieberman rally in Waterbury's Palace Theater, I came here to meet with some of these voters among the 200 people attending a wine and cheese fundraiser with Lamont and his wife, sponsored by a coalition of feminist organizations.

One woman, Karen Schuessler of Ridgefield, told me she had bought an expensive ticket to a Lieberman fundraiser last December so she could tell him directly how much she opposed the war. "He told me, 'Things are looking better over there. They're voting. They have a constitution.' I thought, 'What a moron!' The next month, I went to the first dump-Lieberman meeting."

Ain't that the truth. I think the primary will be close, and Lamont will win. I think the general becomes an up-for-grabs blue seat (no chance for the Rs), and the entire country gets to watch Joe defend the war (assuming he runs - rejection is a powerful message).

Democrats everywhere are looking to Connecticut for clues about the party's direction. The primary will probably point them leftward, toward a stronger antiwar stand. But often in the past, the early successes of these elitist insurgents have been followed by decisive defeats when a broader public weighs in. That is why this contest is so consequential for the Democratic Party.

No question that's true. But trying to take home a message based on Gene McCarthy and HHH is rather stretching a point. Some of the pundits really have to understand that while human nature doesn't change, political dynamics do. It's not 1968 any more, and hasn't been for some years. And paying attention only to 1968 or 1972 without paying attention to the fall of Saigon (or the fall of LBJ) is the ultimate blind spot, particularly in a non-Presidential year (in 1970 for the 91st Congress, the Rs gained four senate seats and the Ds gained 12 house seats).

Well, I have written before about how the Nixon playbook says that antiwar Dems need to be blamed for losing Iraq. Sounds like Broder is warming up that concept in his quiet, center-right way. I do not look forward to reliving the late 60's to satisfy the old men's desire to salvage political points out of a disastrous military and political blunder, but it looks like we are heading down that road. The fault isn't in 'elite' Lamont supporters (see small donor story from Forbes, Mr. Broder), it's in the Republican refusal to take responsibility... but not the blame.

Comments

[Melanie]

Dem,

It looks very much like we are about to replay some old and unattractive history. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to relive them. The moron in the White House and his minions in the Pentagon don't know nuthin' 'bout history.

[DemFromCT]

another interesting take is from Haaretz.

[DemFromCT]

In case you didn't see it

the hug

[Sara]

I really doubt if this will be a replay of 1968 or the early 1970's, largely because the sentiment questioning Bush's conduct of the Iraq was -- and I suspect eventually his diplomacy vis a vis Lebanon and Israel -- is so much stronger than was the anti-war sentiment in 68-74 period. Anti Vietnam convictions never really achieved a majority -- a 50% across most segments of the electorate until Watergate was well developed, and the anti-Nixon and anti war positions merged and supported each other. For Democrats that has for all intents and purposes already happened -- distrust and dislike of Bush is very strong -- and Democrats opposition to the War is at least 60% -- In CT I've seen polls indicating it could be near 70%. I think it is the convergence of Bush distrust with opposition to policy that mutually reinforces.

Over at FDL there is a report in comments regarding a fund raising call from the DNC -- the poster had made clear she was upset with the way the DC Democrats were supporting Lieberman even encouraging the Indy idea. The DNC caller told the poster that Clinton's reason for going to CT had to do with delivering the message clearly -- If Lamont wins the primary, the party gets behind Lamont. No third party games will be played. Hope the poster's report is true.

What I can't figure is why Lieberman did not maintain a state organization over the years. The guy is not dumb, and he lives in an environment where "maintaining one's base" is near religion. Hopefully this will be a good lesson for any of our other Senators who forget who they really represent.

[freepatriot]

yo, melanie:

Santyanna didn't say a fucking word about "History"

those who fail to remember "THE PAST" are doomed to repeat it

history is a subjective review of past event, designed to support a particular point of view

remembering HISTORY is a waste of time. History is rewritten all the time

it seems like a small thing, but it's more important than it looks

[DemFromCT]

Sara's point confirmed by NY Times.

[emptywheel]

Sara,

There's a Nagourney article that explains some of that.

They cited a variety of reasons: a misreading of the depth of antiwar sentiment among Connecticut Democrats, an exodus of experienced political advisers after Mr. Lieberman’s failed presidential bid in 2004, a relatively green Senate campaign staff and the pride that often settles around a politician after many years on the public stage.

[Kevin Hayden]

The Republicans keep making it sound like Vietnam redux. Despite the similarities, it's a different time, a different war, to topple a guy who's been in prison for nearly 3 years.

The race is a referendum on the war, on torture, on women's rights, on presidential power grabs, on illegal wiretapping, on Supreme Court ideology, and on a Senator who's on the wrong side of all these issues.

Lieberman sucked in the 2004 Prez primaries and his statements throughout convinced voters nationwide he was out-of-touch. Ultimately, it's all about Joe's failings, not any specific issue.

But I agree with you: losing the war in Iraq will bring on the GOP lie that liberals and the media caused the loss. Fortunately Howard Dean's taking the lead again in heading that off.

[js paine]

lamont as an anti war candidate makes sense
and to me thats surely enough

but i detect a bigger hope here
looking at kos comments
i see hope that ned
is part of a new and vigorous
anti rightest anti corporationist
anti dlc triangularization movement

a reformationist insurgent
working loyally from
inside the party

to me
he's at best still way out of focus
if thats the mission ahead

[demtom]

If the report on Kos -- that the Times has endorsed Lamont -- is true, I have to say I'm gobsmacked. This is precisely the area (foreign policy, with Israel at least tangentially involved) where the Times has routinely failed to live up to its liberal editorial reputation. (I wonder what kind of editorial board fights were involved) Anyway, this helps Lamont considerably, since 1) it really undercuts the "just a batch of radical bloggers" line and 2) it offsets the certain endorsements of Joe from Zuckerman and Murdoch (3-0 would have marginally damaged Lamont; this renders it meaningless).

The New Republic/Lieberman wing of the party keeps telling us we're stuck in the 60s, but from my vantage point, it's they who can't let it go. This is why they see budget-balancing/NRA-endorsed Howard Dean speaking against the war and decide he's a Birkenstock-wearing Pied Piper; to them, every anti-war candidate is George McGovern with flowers in his hair. As Sara said above, they neglect to note that the American populace is fairly solidly against this war -- a situation that didn't exist in the late 60s/early 70s. Also, there's little connection of this movement to other, even more unpopular issues (say, busing) or any general rejection of mainstream society. The radical image of the McGovern movement came from many conflicts in a society seemingly falling apart, not just the war.

And here's something else our wise pundits might keep in mind: 1972 isn't the parallel. By the time of the election that year, American participation in Vietnam was minimal; Kissinger had even announced peace was at hand. The election where the war was the central issue was 1968 -- and the guy who won was the guy who said he had a secret plan to end it. Whatever internal conflicts Dems may have over the war, it's their great luck that the unpopular conflict is this time presided over by Republicans.

[Mimikatz]

Marshall says the Times endorses Lamont. If true, this is the end for Joe-nertia. It shows how the war trumps everything, and makes the rest of a pro-war Dem's message hollow.

NYT endorses Ned Lamont . . .

More at TPMCafe's Election Central.

And here's how The Times first dropped the bombshell, in a straight news piece on the Lamont-Lieberman race:

[The New York Times, in an editorial published on Sunday, endorsed Mr. Lamont over Mr. Lieberman, arguing that the senator had offered the nation a “warped version of bipartisanship” in his dealings with President Bush on national security.]

[DemFromCT]

Yep, we've got that covered as well.

[bugsy]

Struggling Lieberman faces political abyss
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
Sat Jul 29, 9:44 AM ET

comment edited by DemFromCT. The link is in the original post (under Forbes). please do not post whole articles as it is a violation of fair use laws and a copyright violation.