Over at Belgravia Dispatch, Greg has written a piece on what Rumsfeld’s departure might mean for the next two years. Highly recommend reading the whole thing. He’s optimistic, which makes me a feel a little better. Of course, he also predicted, based on rumblings he was hearing inside the Beltway, that there would be a course change after 2004 (he voted for Bush, silly man). That obviously didn’t happen.

From the piece:

Regardless, what we saw yesterday was American democracy at its finest. We saw the public mount a critically needed intervention, because without it a President well beyond his depth would have likely continued to cast his lot with discredited cocksure ideologues and/or Jacksonian nationalists like Rumsfeld. In Gates, we have an anti-ideologue and a realist. In his role with the Baker-Hamilton commission (a welcome dose of bipartisan sanity in an increasingly moronic Washington, media and blogosphere), he will have had access and been influenced by distinguished peers grappling with what to do next in Iraq in a climate characterized by sober appraisal of the national interest, rather than the agenda-driven hysterical harrumphing afoot in all the usual quarters.

There is a final irony worth noting too, perhaps. With pragmatists and Bush 41 alum like Baker and Gates rising to the fore, the son who marched headstrong into Iraq (like the father wouldn’t after liberating Kuwait) is now being forced to lick his wounds and crawl back towards the protective umbrella of his father’s former advisors. Neo-con exuberances, faith-based adventurism, and utopian aspiration passing for persuasive policy are now necessarily going to be relegated to the back-seat, in favor of essentially needed sobriety and realism (Gates is far closer to Scowcroft, say, than ribald fraudster types spouting off endless inanities at NRO and the Standard). While it is true Cheney is still around (one of his father’s advisors too, but a changed man now no longer respected by his former colleagues in Bush 41), he is a much diminished figure who, to boot, just lost his main ally today.

It is, by far, the most interesting development of this week, that Rumsfeld got the boot after the election night “thumping.” Of course, the move, like everything else this administration does, was timed to shift media attention away from election night losses.

So let’s talk about election night for a bit. Atrios points to an article in the Providence Journal about Chafee’s reaction to his loss. I’ll excerpt the same portion Atrios did:

In his first interview since losing the Republican U.S. Senate seat that has been in his family for three decades, Lincoln D. Chafee yesterday said a lot of people had been coming up to him “and saying, ‘We’re sorry you lost, but glad the Congress switched’ ” from GOP to Democratic Party control.

Asked if deep down, despite his personal disappointment about the outcome of Tuesday’s election, he felt the same way, Chafee looked into the TV cameras and said: “To be honest, yes.”

“When you enact a divisive agenda, don’t talk to the other side, I don’t think that’s good for the country,” Chafee said. At least now, “I think the president is going to have to talk to the Democrats. I think that is going to be good for America.”

If you haven’t been following the race in Rhode Island (and who hasn’t, come on), read the full article. Chafee’s situation was similar to Joe Lieberman’s, in that he was challenged in his party primary. Of course, he was actually attacked on purely ideological grounds for not being “conservative” enough. Lieberman was challenged because he’s a stubborn, arrogant Senator who lost touch with the bulk of his party constituents back home.

That’s what was so interesting about this election cycle. While Ned Lamont lost, his campaign was one of the first big national stories that showed that talking about the war and talking about leaving was the right thing to do. The Democrats fielded strong candidates, among them war veterans (the Fighting Dems), and as the campaign season reached the home stretch, pounded the war message home. The Foley scandal pretty much pushed the rest of the undecideds the Democrats got.

The Lamont campaign showed people we could talk about the war and win elections, and while Lamont didn’t win, his campaign pushed that conversation forward. I wish I had been able to do more this summer to help, but with the wedding and football season back to back, it wasn’t meant to be.

I’m happy he ran, and happy to have supported him. He was a good candidate. A local editorial lays out why his candidacy was important, and this letter from a supports seems to summarize my view.

So, I’ve got a couple of Lieberman predictions that I’d like to set down in print so that if I’m right, I can point out that I wasn’t just pulling a Lieberman and feeling which way the wind is blowing.

First, I think Ned Lamont will pull out a surprising, but very narrow victory on November 7th. I base this on two things. First, my drive to work goes through a very, very Republican section of Bristol. I’ve NEVER in 3 years of working there seen a Democratic candidate on a lawn sign. There are now 2 Ned Lamont lawn signs in Bristol on my way to ESPN which is shocking to me.

Second, every single person I’ve talked to, including some 2004 Bush voters are annoyed by Joe Lieberman. They’re voting for Lamont and that can’t hurt. So, even though Lamont is down 12% in the last ARG poll, I still think there’s a decent chance that this will turn around.

Based on the poll, it’s obviously a long shot. So, let’s say that Lieberman wins, which brings me to the next prediction. If Lieberman wins, he will caucus with whatever party holds the majority in the Senate. If the Republicans hold a majority, he will caucus with them. If the Democrats win a majority, he will caucus with them. I also believe that if the final tally sits at 50-49 Democrats, he will caucus with the Republicans (thus tossing the Senate to the Republicans).

I again realize how wacky this is based on the conventional wisdom, but my suspicion is that he will caucus with whoever gives him the best shot at taking a committee chair. We’ll get some speech about how he’s bringing the parties together. On top of that, I’m guessing Joe’s new donors will want something back for their troubles and cash, and giving the Senate back to Republicans would sure make a nice present.

So, there it is. I really believe that he’s going to flip, and that the only way he’ll caucus with the Dems is if they have the majority without him. Seven seats are tossups according to Cook, so there’s a chance that they can do it without Lieberman.

This election is about improving the state of Iraq, improving the war on terrorism, and basically returning some semblance of debate and discussion to Washington. It’s time to end one party rule, and then work to fix so many things.

Joe Lieberman has indicated that he’s going to caucus with the Democrats if he wins, and a lot of people believe that voting for Joe is in the end the same as voting for a real Democrat. This is a mistake and Joe Lieberman has given yet another example of how he’s more concerned about aligning with the President than he is for a new infusion of ideas and debate. From today’s Hartford Courant:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a lifelong Democrat and student of politics, blanked when asked if America would be better off with his party regaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

…

“Uh, I haven’t thought about that enough to give an answer,” Lieberman said, as though Democrats’ strong prospects for recapturing the House hadn’t been the fall’s top political story.

Yeah, he’s planning on staying with the Democratic caucus after the election. Right.

Look, it’s really simple. Yes, Joe Lieberman seems like a nice guy, but he’s completely rudderless right now. He’s a loose cannon and more likely to join with Republicans on all of the major issues of the day. We’ve royally screwed up another country and have had little oversight over basic issues like how contracts are being executed in Iraq. All we need to make a substantial improvements in Iraq is a Congress (even one house) that is committed to real oversight and real investigation.

Joe Lieberman isn’t committed to that plan, and he’s not committed to oversight. It might just be that he’s afraid because on most of the issues that require investigation and oversight, Joe Lieberman has sided with the administration. He’s more interested in just staying in Congress than actually doing his job when he’s there. Add to that the sheer dishonesty with which Lieberman and his spokesman Gerstein have run his campaign and the choice is clear.

The only choice this fall for Senator is Ned Lamont. Vote Ned in 2006!

Olbermann might be the most courageous broadcaster on television after Stephen Colbert, as his criticism of the administration has always been fact based and unflinching. I just watched his editorial commentary about 9/11, the lack of a memorial on Ground Zero, and the administration in general and was floored. It is, by far, the most eloquent commentary I’ve seen from Olbermann.

I’ve excerpted a part below. Olbermann’s overall metaphor doesn’t necessarily work for me, but this section, the meat of this editorial, summarizes the pain and futility of this administration. I’ve written before that I also will never forgive or forget how this president destroyed that moment of unity after 9/11. It wasn’t just our nation but the world that was united, an improbable opportunity to change the world in the ashes of tragedy. It was the first time NATO invoked Article 5 of the treaty declaring our nation under attack. Le Monde ran the headline “We are all Americans now” and nearly every leader of every country expressed their support and sympathy.

In the years since, we have gone from neighbor to pariah, from “Nous sommes tous Américains” to Freedom Fries, and from chasing bin Ladin to chasing phantom WMD. As Olbermann eloquently points out, the President chose to use 9/11 as a wedge issue. It simply became a political tool that was used to badger Democrats into submission and to bolster numbers at the polls. Every time he invokes the memory of those that perished to pursue a domestic political agenda, every photo op, every claim that critics have “forgotten the lessons of 9/11″ cheapens their memory. It reduces them to props in a political game, and it’s despicable.

This is why, when the President speaks of bipartisanship, we should reflect upon the past five years and examine our “bipartisanship” moments on the most important issue of our time. Bipartisanship brought us the war in Iraq because of several deftly timed votes. Bipartisanship brought us zero accountability in government. When the President speaks of bipartisanship, he speaks only of bipartisanship that furthers his political agenda.

As he did today, the President will invoke bipartisanship in the weeks and months to come to stave off electoral losses. I hope all of us, Republicans, Democrats and Independents recognize that for what it is. Many incumbents, including our own Senator here in Connecticut, are joining the President’s chorus, hoping that claims of bipartisanship also absolve them of accountability. We owe it to ourselves and to our nation to vote for accountability. Hopefully, then, we can get the job done, both at Ground Zero and in the hills of Pakistan, wherever bin Ladin might be.

Here’s the section I mentioned. Watch the whole editorial. You won’t be sorry.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is, its symbolism — of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it… was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party — tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election — ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications — forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government, by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation’s wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President — and those around him — did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, “bi-partisanship” meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, “validate the strategy of the terrorists.”

They promised protection, and then showed that to them “protection” meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken… a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ’something to do’ with 9/11, is “lying by implication.”

The impolite phrase, is “impeachable offense.”

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space… and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible — for anything — in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced — possibly financed by — the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death… after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections… how dare you or those around you… ever “spin” 9/11.

Long time without a post on the Lieberman/Lamont/Schlesinger race here in CT, so here’s a quick update. The campaign has quieted down a bit in recent weeks. Not quite the same press as right before primary, as you might imagine. Since then, Joe Lieberman lied about his campaign website being “hacked,” then finally a few days ago relaunched the web site in this cheesy new design. The site has a blog which tellingly links only to out-of-state blogs. It’s weird, because there are CT blogs that support his candidacy, at least in part. The fine folks at CT Local Politics have a few Lieberman supporters.

It’s indicative of a larger trend. People, including senior political figures in our state have dropped Lieberman. His campaign is dependent on a lot of out-of-state support, including ads and support from a shady Republican-backed outfit. In fact, he has spent more time hanging out with Jodi Rell, our popular Republican governor, than any Democrats in the state. Bipartisan indeed.

I hope he loses big come November. The power of incumbency is very tough to beat, and Joe has deep connections and outstanding favors in all sorts of places. The labor movement is split between the two candidates (Lieberman has an edge there), so traditional sources for volunteers and ground support will be split as well. This is going to be an interesting race as we get closer to November.

Only 2 days before the primary election and finally, finally Sen. Lieberman addresses the quote:

I know that statement has been widely misconstrued, so let me address it head on. I did not suggest that the President or anyone else — including me — should be immune from criticism. The best proof of that is I myself have challenged the President’s policies on many occasions.

The point I was trying to make was about how we disagree. My concern was, and remains, that if opponents or supporters of the war go beyond disagreeing to exploiting the war for partisan political purposes, much like Republicans did to Max Cleland on homeland security, we could lose more than an election. We could put our mission in Iraq, the lives of thousands of American soldiers carrying it out, and our national security at risk. That is what I care about.

It’s too bad for the Senator that this statement is one of many he’s made along the same lines. It’s simply the most concise expression of his views on dissent and the role of the minority party. Lieberman seems to be unable to connect the fact that disagreeing without actually winning elections results in a lot of hot air and no action. In his world, exploiting for political purposes is anything that allows a party to campaign and win.

The Republicans don’t care about what the Democrats have to say. They simply don’t give a jot. Without actual debate and effective compromise on the part of Republicans, Democrats have no choice but to get elected to change policy. That means talking about the war in a partisan way, with a political context. You can’t get elected if you can’t tie your election to results.

That’s what Lieberman doesn’t understand. He’s very proud taking bipartisan action. Unfortunately, those bipartisan agreements are shams. Too often, Lieberman values bipartisanship over actual leadership.

Even all of that is less important than the final reality. He’s moved far away from what his constituents, especially in the Democratic party, want. A lot of people (we’ll find out how many come Tuesday) simply don’t agree with the Senator on many of the major issues of the day. We feel like he is more interested in talking about his so-called convictions and talking to Sean Hannity and getting on Fox News than actually representing his constituency.

He’s a great Senator when it comes to showpiece votes that don’t matter. When faced with an opportunity to exercise leadership, he does nothing. That is the real Joe Lieberman, and that’s why we’re even talking about Ned Lamont.

This Tuesday is the primary in Connecticut, where we finally get to see how Democrats in CT will vote on the CT Senator race between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont. Most of you know that Heidi and I are supporting Ned Lamont in this race.

Some of you that live in CT and are registered Democrat or unaffiliated got postcards from me about the Ned Lamont campaign. I forgot to mention that if you're unaffiliated, you must switch your party registration to Democrat in order to vote in the primary Tuesday. You can do this Monday if you're interested in voting. Changing from unaffiliated to any party works instantly.

A quick summary of why we're voting for Ned Lamont:

• Ned Lamont won't say this: "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril." I find that statement insulting to the very nature of American democracy and deeply offensive. Joe Lieberman actually said that and has never taken it back.
• Ned is a businessman and understands how social programs such as universal healthcare actually helps businesses grow. (Ask GM or even your own HR people how much healthcare costs the company).
• Lamont has argued and campaigned for more transparency in politics. Lieberman has been for the Cheney energy bill, for Justice Alito who advocates for fewer limits on Presidential power, and has never (well, until this past week when it was politically advantageous) stood up and advocated investigations or hearings on any of the myriad of issues and scandals that have come up around the White House.
• Ned Lamont has a good, progressive approach to government: he believes that earmarks are a bad way to allocate federal resources, that the government should stay out of the private lives of citizens as much as possible, and believes energy policy is a national security issue.

Those are the top issues for me. If you believe they focus around the President, they do. These positions all express a philosophy of governance, that somehow the President is more important than the other branches, about how minority and majority parties should behave in Congress, and of simply providing a false definition of bipartisanship that has nothing to do with compromise.

You can find out more about Ned Lamont at his web site or you can check out some of his appearances. Videos are available around the web, but here's a few to help you out.

This is his recent appearance on the Colbert Report:

If you want more, here's the Stephen Colbert explaining why this race matters to so many of us in CT:

If you have any questions about the campaign or have any concerns, get in touch with me or with the Lamont campaign. They have a good web site, and all of the CT political blogs listed in the blogroll are covering the race (some are supporters, some are bipartisan blogs with both sides represented). Whatever you do, and whoever you decide to support, if you're a registered Democrat Get Out and Vote on Tuesday!

Stephen Colbert is my hero:

Via My Left Nutmeg.

I know that a lot of the readers here probably don’t care about Lamont and Lieberman. I ask that you bear with me as I’ve asked CT friends to keep an eye on FM for more info on Lamont and my opinions on the race.

That being said, I’ve noticed that I’m not the only person talking about this primary to a national audience. The debate was covered on MSNBC and CSPAN live. David Brooks wrote a column on the race, and political magazines from The Economist and TNR.

So, a number of blogs have been commenting on the following problem. Explain the difference between these things:

Lamont vs. Lieberman
Toomey vs. Specter (2004 PA Senate)
Laffey vs. Chafee (2006 RI Senate)

Just take a look at why these challengers ran, then compare media coverage. The Lamont race is apparently a “liberal inquisition.” The two races where hard right ideologues ran to upset otherwise solid Republicans are, well, not newsworthy (had you heard about either race before? I bet some of you haven’t)

The video below contains one of the parts of the Lamont/Lieberman debate that left me conflicted. On one hand, I completely agree with Lamont. Earmarks are the worst way to bring money home to Connecticut. They represent the least transparent way to add money into contracts and the least efficient way of bringing jobs to the state. On the other hand, the cynic in me knows that any effort on the part of Lamont to deal with this will hurt CT in the short run because Lamont will be alone... Earmarks aren't going to be outlawed.

A group out there chose their position and produced this video:

More on this video at MyLeftNutmeg.

Update: I forgot to post that the Courant talked to the Republicans that worked with Lamont when he was a Selectman. Just in case people were wondering about those statements by Lieberman, there's your answer.

A little tough on Lamont's suit, but beyond that, an interesting rundown on the debate:

I took a closer look at the numbers from opensecrets.org and have decided that saying Lieberman has outraised Lamont by an order of magnitude is probably inaccurate. I say probably because opensecrets.org only has numbers from the April 2006 report. Lamont donated $1.5 million of his own money into the race. Reports say he’s raised another $500,000 via different online organizations, notably over $250,000 via ActBlue (that’s the donate link in the sidebar).

The Courant article I linked to above also claims that Lamont has outspent Lieberman over these last few months on TV ads, spending $700,000 to Lieberman’s $500,000.

Anyway, it was such an important point to my earlier post that when I found this out, I had to pass it on. Lieberman still has a huge fundraising advantage, and Lamont is no billionaire like Bloomberg. I think my general point still holds, but I just wanted to be accurate.

You can watch Sen. Lieberman explain it all, including his attempt to imply that Lamont will buy the seat, even though Lieberman has out spent and out fundraised Lamont by over seven times. Despicable.

Excerpt:

I had trouble coming up with a headline because he makes so many outrageous claims. He said he’s taking out an insurance policy. Write your own headline…

One other note: King, who’s interviewing Lieberman in this video clip, generally is sympathetic to the White House in his reporting. He’s CNN’s White House correspondent and generally seems to believe what they tell him. Don’t think it matters in this particular case, but I’ve watched him a lot on TV.

Update: Slight correction to the fundraising numbers. I don’t think it’s quite 7 times. Check out my update for more info

Sen. Lieberman has announced today that if he loses the primary on Aug. 8th, he’s going to run as an independent candidate. Democrats who are choosing to vote in the primary should remember that when they head to the polls in August. He doesn’t care what you think, he just wants to be in Congress.

Granted, he’s probably going to win a three-way race, so this makes perfect sense for him. If he does win the general election in spite of jumping ship, then clearly he deserves to be there. This doesn’t really change that. What it points to, though, is the complete and utter hypocrisy of his “I’m really a Democrat” ad campaign.

This brings up an interesting quandary for Sen. Lieberman. Does he fight for the Democratic nomination? Or does he save up and plan to crush Lamont with his treasure chest come November? Will Republicans choose Joe over the Republican candidate to beat Ned this November? This should be interesting.

Hopefully Ned Lamont will win the Democratic primary so at the very least we don’t have to hear Liberman quoted as a Democrat anymore. That alone would make me happy.

Update: Of course, LamontBlog has something to say about this. As they remind us:

Just like when Joe ran for Vice President and Senate at the same time in 2000 - meaning that if he and Gore had won, Democrats would have lost a senate seat to a Republican appointment - he is again putting his own career and self-interest ahead of his constitutents and his party (or now ex-party).

I don’t believe that it’s a lock that Lieberman will lose the primary, so I have to disagree with LamontBlog on that. I think that Lieberman is doing what he did in 2000, making sure he has a job instead of thinking about what’s best for country and state.

I’ve been laying off the rah-rah Lamont stuff on FatMixx because I know that most of the regulars at FatMixx just don’t care at all, but just based on this story today I have to point out that around my neighborhood, I’ve seen zero Liberman signs and a number of Lamont signs out on yards. There are 4 just on the half-mile drive to the highway onramp, including mine. We drove up to Bloomfield yesterday to go to Lowe’s and saw a lot of Lamont signs. We did see a number of Lieberman signs, too, mostly in front of the mansions up on Prospect. In general, we saw way more Lamont signs. I’m pretty sure I know how the Democrats of Connecticut’s first district will be voting. Of course, Lieberman is from down by New Haven, I think, so it will be interesting to see how the other districts go (Lamont is from Fairfield county, also a wealthy part of the state).

An excellent post at Eschaton (far less common than it once used to be) quotes this great explanation of why it’s OK to bounce Joe.

Is that enough of a reason to oppose Lieberman? Sure, because it’s a huge error on one of the most fundamental questions of our time. It’s an error not of policy or of political loyalty, but of attitude. And it is not an error that I see others making. I heard Ed Kilgore today, on a bloggingHeads sequence, argue that if “the bloggers” come for Lieberman today, tomorrow they’ll go after Steny Hoyer or Hillary Clinton. I can’t speak for everyone, but while I have disagreements with Clinton and probably Hoyer, I’ve never heard them say things as deeply offensive to my sense of what democracy and patriotism requires as I’ve heard from Lieberman recently.

I think the “opposed the opposers” characterization captures quite nicely why anti-war people are still rather pissed off at a certain set of people. Too many pro-war people didn’t just set out to win their argument (such courage, supporting the official actions of a sitting government), but actively joined in to marginalize those of us who disagreed. It was a highly discouraging time in history, it was a highly disheartening time to be partcipating (in the tiny way that I was) in the public discourse. Even those who who supported the war should’ve had the sense to notice that the active marginalization of dissenters, and the general way this war was sold, was something to be troubled about.

I pretty much agree with the whole of the comments and would point out that this isn’t just a negative case against Lieberman. It also builds the affirmative case for Ned Lamont. He acknowledges the differences of opinion that permeate discussions about the war. As an elected official (in the past) and as a candidate, he’s shown a commitment to working with Republicans when that cooperation isn’t co-option.

That’s what Connecticut Democrats are clamoring for. It’s not about the specific issues alone, but because our representative in the Senate isn’t doing a good job of representing our views. We want a candidate who won’t then turn around and criticize us for not agreeing with the President. That’s all this is about, and there’s not a thing Joe Lieberman can do to change that perception because it’s true.

If Lieberman wins, it will be because of the chips he’s able to call in and because of the power of incumbency. I doubt many Democrats are voting for him.

A decent editorial today shows the strategy Sen. Joe Lieberman is taking to convince Democrats he’s really a Democrat. More importantly, he’s trying to show local Democrats he really votes the way his constituents would want. Lieberman touts his scorecards with issue groups, but those don’t include procedural votes that truly affect the outcome of legislation. It’s one thing to take the easy stands on votes that don’t matter. It’s yet another to really stand up and fight for things that are wrong. Lieberman has a nice scorecard but he has no battle scars. On how many issues has he stood up for the citizens of our state where he actually won something for his constituents?

When defense contractors and big campaign contributors weren’t involved, his list is nearly at zero.

On a related note, today was Celebrate! West Hartford in our lovely town. Every year, the Republicans and Democrats have booths at the festival. Walking by the Democratic booth, and walking around the fair, I saw many, many, many people asking about Ned Lamont. Our neighbor was working the booth (though not for Lamont), so we stopped to chat with him for a while. During that time, I saw several people come up for stickers and bumper stickers. I saw many people around the festival wearing Lamont stickers on their shirts and jackets. Lieberman’s folks had a table at the booth as well and no one came up during that time. I saw no signs or stickers for the Senator, either. West Hartford is a large district in CT, and while it’s hard to draw any hard conclusions from this about Lieberman, it’s clear that Lamont’s name is getting out there and he has supporters.

Heidi’s department had a faculty picnic tonight at the chairperson’s home. On our way there, we also saw surprisingly many houses with Lamont signs out front (including our own). Against an incumbent like Lieberman, it’s surprising to see such visible support out among the community.

Lieberman has a fight on his hand, and August 8th is going to be a big day in Connecticut.

Hopefully, this coming week I’ll be attending my first meeting as a volunteer on Ned Lamont’s campaign to replace Joe Lieberman as our junior senator from CT. I’m not sure how much I’ll be able to help, or whether I’ll even like being a volunteer, but I’m tired of just writing about these things.

So why this race? After all, it’s simply a primary campaign to replace a Democrat with yet another Democrat. In the great scheme of things, it’s not changing the balance of Congress at all. Well, for one thing, I can actually do something here. This is in my state, and it’s my voice that’s being mangled in Congress. The second reason is that the principle here matters. Respect for the Constitution, not the President, needs to be topmost in a senator’s mind. It’s the other way around for Senator Lieberman.

Sen. Lieberman is too caught up in the appearance of being a non-partisan to actually do his job effectively. He doesn’t champion oversight, routinely sells out constituencies he then uses to boost his campaigns, and generally does little to reflect the views of this rather socially liberal and fiscally moderate state in Congress.

Like Senator McCain, the myth belies the reality. Sen. Lieberman isn’t a centrist. He’s no champion of bipartisanship. He’s simply follows the President around like a lap dog. Rarely has Lieberman stood up to any Presidential policy position that were at odds with his own stated principles or policy positions. That is a disservice to the constituencies back home where Bush’s approval ratings are at a meager 31% (SurveyUSA tracking poll). It’s also a disservice to the nation at large. Anyone who says

It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he’ll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril.

isn’t doing his job. Congress’s job is not “support the President no matter what.” It’s to work with the President and the judiciary, perform their constitutional duties, and, if necessary, provide a check against overreach by other branches. Our job as citizens isn’t to quietly support every policy position by the Republicans or the President. Without reasoned debate and challenges by the minority party, we have no balance in our discourse and no informed decision making by Congress at large.

On the particular issues of Congressional oversight and the Iraq war, I agree with Lamont. His statement on energy independence is almost exactly what I believe. For those reasons, and to get rid of Joe Lieberman, I’m with Ned Lamont in 2006.

If you’re in CT or care about these issues, consider donating to Lamont’s campaign, too!

(Connecticut’s Primary is on August 8th, 2006)

Ned Lamont announced his candidacy today for the Senate seat currently held by Sen. Joe Lieberman. Sen. Lieberman lost my support a long time ago, and his support for all the things that make me afraid of this administration makes Lieberman a problem for our state. Ned Lamont comes to us from a old money CT family, and the owner of a successful business he founded and a progressive who understands that business is an important part of America’s strength.

This is a candidate that I feel I can support. You’ll be hearing more about him from me, but until then, you can read more at his campaign web site. I’ll be reading too.