Patterico's Pontifications

8/8/2006

Lamont Wins. Lamont Wins. Lamont Wins.

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:25 pm

Allah has the details, including Neddy’s victory speech, which Allah characterizes as a “call for retreat.”

(Posted from the Hollywood Bowl during the opening moments of Brahms’s Second Symphony.)

Comments (35)

35 Responses to “Lamont Wins. Lamont Wins. Lamont Wins.”

Nobody could make this stuff up. Except George McGovern.

More important than Lamont is this USA Today piece on Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs. The best part is the expert they called in to comment on LGF. Glenn Greenwald !

I told you. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
Mike K (416363) — 8/8/2006 @ 9:41 pm
*wipes tears from her eyes*

This is such a great day. Cynthia McKinney goes down in flames and the death wish Dems in CT nominate a guy advocating retreat who thinks that’s a winning strategy. Congrats!
sharon (63d8f8) — 8/8/2006 @ 9:46 pm
Here’s from an AP piece about Lieberman leaving he Democrats and running as an independent:

“Three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman fell to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont in Connecticut’s Democratic primary Tuesday, a race seen as a harbinger of sentiment over the conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq.”

Notice the phrase, “a race seen as a harbinger of sentiment over the conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq.”

Later in the same article, it says:

“In Georgia, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the fiery congresswoman known for her conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11 attacks and a scuffle this year with a U.S. Capitol police officer, lost a runoff for the Democratic nomination.

“And in Michigan, moderate Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz lost to a conservative in a GOP primary.”

These don’t count, of course.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/8/2006 @ 9:52 pm
I’m with you guys … WTFs wrong with this Lamont guy being opposed to the “Keep Our Guys Dying” strategy.
Macswain (2aadc0) — 8/8/2006 @ 10:11 pm
Ultimately, Lieberman will win the general election in November.

However, until then, the GOP candidates need to nationalize this primary election result by reminding voters in their home districts that the Lamont primary victory represents MAINSTREAM Democrat sentiment for a cut & run policy, and that if the House & Senate are turned over to Democrat leadership, we will be fighting terrorism with one hand tied behind our back.

What Lamont’s victory does is re-affirm the notion that the Democrat party cannot be trusted with national security.

The other positive I see in this primary result is that between now & November, it enables Daily Kos & the Frothing-At-The-Mouth anti-Semitic Counter-Culture Left to have greater opportunities to remind voters on a national scale just how DANGEROUS it is to have such morally confused people anywhere near the Potomac or the Capitol Building.

Surely this added exposure for Kos & the Moonbats will turn-off independents, centrists of both parties, and moderate Democrats.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 8/8/2006 @ 11:51 pm
That’s the way it goes for democrats who want to brown-nose Bush. And amen for that! Let Joe run as a republican if he wants to act a fool.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 8/9/2006 @ 4:23 am
WTG, Psy. One guy’s conviction is another guy’s brown-nosing.
sharon (63d8f8) — 8/9/2006 @ 4:26 am
Where’s the bit about Che-Che’s lagubrious daughter asking why Joe Lieberman doesn’t care about America anymore?
Dan Collins (208fbe) — 8/9/2006 @ 5:28 am
“I’m with you guys … WTFs wrong with this Lamont guy being opposed to the “Keep Our Guys Dying” strategy.

Comment by Macswain ”

Yeah, Lamont will see to it that the dying takes place right here at home. You guys are amazing. Have you noticed all the new interest in the 1930s and appeasement ? I just picked up a copy of the HBO show made from “The Gathering Storm.” The anti-Israel sentiments of the NY Times are part of it. The London Times would not allow anything written about Churchill before the German invasion of France in 1940. He was considered “unsound”, sort of like Lieberman. Charles Johnson exposes Reuters as a Hezbollah propagandist and the MSM asks CAIR to comment. Guess what they had to say ?

Lieberman has a zero conservative rating. He’s not a Republican but he doesn’t fit the party of McGovern.
Mike K (416363) — 8/9/2006 @ 6:16 am
hooray for ned lamont! he’s gonna be connecticut’s next senator.
i can’t stand lieberman. he’s always adopted a moralistic tone, as if he had a holiness franchise, and when he waxed wroth over sex and violence in movies and video games, i realized he was seeking state control over art. that isn’t going to get my vote. cozying up to bush isn’t a good move either. finally, his unusually high, whiny voice made him sound like a eunuch on the stump. he’s gonna split the republican vote in november and guarantee lamont’s election. adios, eunuch!
assistant devil's advocate (8aa383) — 8/9/2006 @ 8:55 am
Mike K – the comparison to Churchill of the 1930s is a bit over the top; Churchill was, with good reason, considered (a) a drunk, and (b) a failure as a strategist; his great endeavors during WWI had almost all ended in failure, and his reputation for being unsound derived from that long before he started beating the warning drums about Hitler.
aphrael (3bacf3) — 8/9/2006 @ 8:58 am
Shame really.

Lieberman is a sensible and thoughtful senator. I didn’t agree with all of his politics but that’s true of just about all the legislators regardless of which party. I don’t have to. I’m willing to accept the fact that they may have better information than I do. Their purpose is to represent the interests of their districts (representatives) and the regional (state) interests in decisions regarding the country as a whole (senators).

On the other hand, there are plenty of legislators that I consider pandering assholes to whom power and prestige trump the job description every time and who pimp or whore for any interest that supports that. That will be Ned Lamont. That IS Ned Lamont.

Maybe the guy will win this fall. He would against the weak republican contender. As good an example of successful get out the vote and both new party registration and new voter registration drives as any I’ve seen went on in the primary but that well is dry now. The CT suburban voter turnout was as high as it gets in any general election, but the urban turnout lower than general elections and as I understand it (if you believe in exit polling), over half of Lamont’s support came from people voting against Lieberman, not for Lamont. That’s a downside for Lamont and he knows it. In the general election Lamont has to face the same voter rationalizations. He needed a much more convincing win to keep Lieberman from running as an independent and allowing CT voters will turn the tables on him. Not only Lieberman democrats, but independents and republicans will be looking for any alternative to Lamont. Lieberman running as an independent in the general election will provide that alternative. I doubt the republican contender will even reach the percentage of registered republicans voting in the general in a race with Lieberman in as an independent.

Lieberman filed as an independent. Even if Lieberman doesn’t win, but runs a close race, Lamont will go to Washington perceived as a one issue, one time winner from a state that should have given him a 70% win in a dem/rep only race and given little attention by the real power brokers.

Lamonts marginal victory yesterday was a direct effect of the national nutroots focus on CT. Their attention will be far less focused in the general election. They’re not going to convince the independent, republican, or even many Lieberman democrat voters to support Lamont. The nutroots will spend more credibility challenging every signature. They’ll play their web site assault games again. They’ll give even more CT voters the impression that kooks from out of town are trying to run the state.

I think Lamont got every permanent resident vote yesterday that he will get in the general election. (The in session college vote will be a net gain, but it won’t be enough). Yesterday’s results may be the best thing that could have happened for CT and the country and maybe even for Lieberman.
Just Passing Through (ec1b30) — 8/9/2006 @ 9:21 am
BTW:

Won’t happen, but the best thing the republicans could do for CT is have the republican candidate stay at a lower profile than he already has. Let it be a Lieberman vs Lamont race statewide in fact if not practice and see what happens to the nutroots. If that asswipe Hamsher’s blackface pic of Lieberman had come out two weeks ago instead of last week, Lamont may have lost. Expect that to come up repeatedly as the general election draws closer. Lamont will have a difficult time distancing himself from that and all the new stuff that will be on the left blogs. It’s a gold mine for Lieberman and he’ll have the time to refine it.

Another facet will be the results of the investigation into who bought down Lieberman’s website on the most crtical day of runup to the primary. Expect Lieberman to mine that one also.
Just Passing Through (ec1b30) — 8/9/2006 @ 10:08 am
“i can’t stand lieberman. he’s always adopted a moralistic tone, as if he had a holiness franchise,”

A.D.A., you really have a problem with people who actually have morals and express them, don’t you? I guess that speaks volumes about you, more so that Mr. Lieberman. I guess the leader of the free world diddling the help didn’t bother you, but it was certainly distasteful to quite a few people. But, hey, we had the dotcom boom, so who cares, right?

“and when he waxed wroth over sex and violence in movies and video games, i realized he was seeking state control over art.”

State control over art? Puh-lease. If you believe in government funding of art, then don’t even start the “censorship” argument. I hope you don’t have kids. If you had them, you might actually consider things like a ratings system to be helpful.
sharon (03e82c) — 8/9/2006 @ 10:10 am
Leiberman was on the wrong side of the other side.
Paulitics (2900fc) — 8/9/2006 @ 11:33 am
@sharon:
well, yes, the dotcom boom and the prosperity it brought for so many people was well worth several white house blow jobs. i’m nostalgic for the era of prosperity, relative peace, balanced budgets, environmental stewardship, civil rights and yes, white house blow jobs!
@just passing through:
i have seen on the internet (but of course, do not know for a fact) that lieberman’s website crashed because his host subcontracted its duties to another host with limited bandwidth capacity, and that the lieberman campaign was only paying $15/month for host services – in other words, it was their own damn fault.
assistant devil's advocate (a0682d) — 8/9/2006 @ 12:30 pm
Prosperity? When the dotcoms went bust? Well, those people probably wouldn’t call what happened to them prosperity.

Relative peace? Two attacks on the World Trade Center, bombings of various American interests abroad? That’s peace to you?

Balanced budgets? Yes, when Clinton decided to ax military spending, that did, indeed, help balance the budget, along with the restraints Republicans put on his spending (just think what the deficits would have been like with Hillarycare!).

Environmental stewardship? Oh, yes, keeping American oil off limits for exploration so we could pay much more for oil later. That’s some stewardship!

“Civil rights.” I guess groping women in the White House wasn’t violating their civil rights. And it wasn’t violating any civil rights to grab F.B.I. files, sell pardons to the highest bidder, etc., etc. God, those must have been the good ol’ days.
sharon (03e82c) — 8/9/2006 @ 1:04 pm
Hell, Sharon, if ADA or any other super-lefty had kids he and they would care less about the “pleasures of adultery, wine and civilized conversation” (a metaphor of the French ethos) and more about securing a better future for those kids. When they still taught these things in grade-schools, I read an essay by Thomas Payne condemning a man who opposed the Revolutionary War and who also had a young daughter for saying “Peace in my time”. He thought it was it the most horribly selfish thing a father could say. I agree with him.
nk (06f5d0) — 8/9/2006 @ 1:07 pm
Leiberman was on the wrong side of the other side.

Funny how that seems to happen in politics.
Just Passing Through (ec1b30) — 8/9/2006 @ 1:46 pm
Sharon,

“assistant devil’s advocate” (and his aliases) doesn’t like Jews and supports Hezbollah & Hamas in their promises to destroy Israel—that is why he was rooting for Lieberman to lose.

The ironic thing about “a.d.a.’s” hatred for Israel, is that Israelis treat same-sex couples infinitely better than any of Israel’s enemies do.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 8/9/2006 @ 3:14 pm
ada said:

i have seen on the internet (but of course, do not know for a fact) that lieberman’s website crashed because his host subcontracted its duties to another host with limited bandwidth capacity, and that the lieberman campaign was only paying $15/month for host services – in other words, it was their own damn fault.

Jesus, you have to be clueless to make such an absurdly stupid, ignorant, and already debunked statement. A campaign that spent millions shorted their internet hosting to $15 a month for 4 months to save money? Apply a little common sense and logic for christ’s sake.

You’re also behind the times. Leiberman’s campaign has already put in a request for a criminal investigation which infers that their hosting service has recorded evidence indicating that it was a malicious attempt to shut them down. The question is not whether it was some sort of DoS, but whether it can be tracked to the culprit(s).
Just Passing Through (ec1b30) — 8/9/2006 @ 4:36 pm
well, yes, the dotcom boom and the prosperity it brought for so many people was well worth several white house blow jobs.

Liberal “logic” at work.

Hint idiot, you can’t name a single thing that President did to encourage any “boom.”

Further, it’s not like you had to have them both occur.

You people are literally unreal.
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/9/2006 @ 6:16 pm
i’m nostalgic for the era of prosperity, relative peace, balanced budgets, environmental stewardship, civil rights and yes, white house blow jobs!

Prosperity?
Like record home ownership and 4.6% unemployment?

“Relative peace”?
You mean like:
1993 WTC Bombing
Somalia
Oklahoma City Bombing
Atlanta Olympics Bombing
East African Embassy Bombings
Khobar Towers
Operation Desert Fox
USS Cole Bombing,
right?

“Civil rights” an joke of a statement.

“environmental stewardship”
Er, ignorant, the air & water are cleaner now than 10 and 30 years ago.
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/9/2006 @ 6:20 pm
You folks just dont Dod damn get it! Open your closed minds and realize that we are fighting in a war between two groups in Iraq and not a real war on terror. Bush told us there were WMDs in Iraq, did he not? or am I imagining that? That was the justification for the war. That proved false. You tell me the reason. Then they talked about or implied connections to Al Quida, and that also proved false. Then there were connections to some international terrorist groups and that proved false. Now its some grandious scheme to bring democracy to Iraq and to the entire middle east when in fact there is no guarantee democracy will lead to the election of a pro US government. It certainly did not in Palestine.

Now having seen all previous justifications been proven false its now just a constant repetition of the mantra that this is a war against terrorism over and over and over again or reliance on some unknown figure that purports to be able to prove something the CIA has been unable to do. Common sense will tell you this is Osama Bin Ladins dream come true. The US bogged down in a civil war with no end in sight, and the entire world looking on in disgust and anger towards us. Americans dying and wounded. Arabs and Muslims watching Arabs and Moslims dying every day. Do you think they will not be affected by these photos? Do you not understand the hatred you are creating? Still the band plays on on insisting over and over and over again, this is a war on terrorism, and those that oppose this hate American and want to cut and run..

Did it never occur to you that these are nothing but empty mantras repeated again and again by failed politicians seeking to cover their asses? How many times do you have to hear the Bush happy talk before you realize its bullshit? How many times do you have to hear about a corner turned before you realize that the war is unwinnable and for being conducted for no good reason? If Iraq becomes a democracy and votes to side with Iran then how will you justify it all?

I defy someone to tell me that if Clinton had done exactly the same things you would not be outraged?
I understand fully there are evil people out there that must be fought and I am willing to do what I can do help in that fight. When are you going to realize you are fighting a false war based on half truths and falsities that is draining us of our resources and will only serve to make us weaker and that it is being supported by politicians who are out to cover their sorry butts for if they admitted what the world already knows, that the war is based on lies and half truths, they would be run out of office on a rail and tarred and feathered!

So they continue to spin and spin and pedal their false story and you continue to buy it. Are you willing to send your sons and daughters to die in the middle of a civil war? Are you so filled with hate toward Democrats that you would rather continue the lie than admit your are wrong for fear of political loss? Do you not see the impending results?

So a man like Ned comes along and does that the cowardly Democrats dont seem to have the guts to do.. Rip the facade away from the lies that we are being told and the matrix that we live in. Either you see it or you dont want to but the facts are clear..
charlie (e583c4) — 8/9/2006 @ 7:19 pm
thank you charlie. unfortunately, many of the other commenters on here believe bush talks to god and relays god’s messages to them.
the hate on this commentspace is truly bracing, it shows i’m going in the right direction, as chairman mao observed “it is good that we are being attacked, for it means that we have successfully established a distinction between our attackers and ourselves.” now watch me get called a maoist.
assistant devil's advocate (714fd9) — 8/9/2006 @ 9:11 pm
Bush told us there were WMDs in Iraq, did he not?

Um, that was the official policy of the US government prior to Bush being elected there mr. non-sequitur.

Then they talked about or implied connections to Al Quida, and that also proved false.

Hilarious.
Um, who “proved” this “false” exactly?

Now its some grandious scheme to bring democracy to Iraq

Actually, President Bush talked about this (and of course was mocked for it by the left) before the invasion.

Now having seen all previous justifications been proven false

You’re either stupid or lying, which is it?
You haven’t typed a true statement yet.

I’m not going to bother with the rest of your insane drivel.
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/10/2006 @ 6:39 am
Then they talked about or implied connections to Al Quida, and that also proved false.

Gee. Iraq had no connections to Al Qaeda?
Patterico (50c3cd) — 8/10/2006 @ 6:51 am
“thank you charlie. unfortunately, many of the other commenters on here believe bush talks to god and relays god’s messages to them.”

You got some direct quotes to back up this statement?

“the hate on this commentspace is truly bracing,”

The only “hate” shown on this space comes from your side, A.D.A. The side who constantly belittles and derides people of faith (such as the comment highlighted above), who mocks anyone you consider “hypocritical” without addressing the many, many hypocrites on the Democratic side. Try cleaning up your own manure before you complain about anyone else.

And quoting a mass murderer? Well, I guess it does say a lot about you, doesn’t it?
sharon (03e82c) — 8/10/2006 @ 7:58 am
Just for Charlie & A.D.A., I have a portion of Ann Coulter’s column for today, which seems fitting in light of y’all’s latest comments:

“To give you a snapshot of today’s Democratic Party, in 2004, pollster Scott Rasmussen asked likely voters if they believed America was generally a fair and decent country and whether they believed the world would be a better place if more countries were like America.

“Republicans agreed that America is generally fair and decent, 83 percent to 7 percent. Eighty-one percent agreed that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

“By contrast, Democrats were nearly split, with only 46 percent agreeing that America is generally a fair and decent country, and with 37 percent saying America is not a generally fair and decent country. Only 48 percent of Democrats said they thought that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

“Democrats constantly complain that the nation has never been so divided, but consider that half of them think the statement that America is a good country is a divisive remark.”
sharon (03e82c) — 8/10/2006 @ 8:21 am
Then they talked about or implied connections to Al Quida, and that also proved false.

Just so this rubbish doesn’t go unrefuted:

“I must say I have trouble understanding the flack over this. The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government. We don’t disagree with that. What we have said is… we don’t have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative relationship between Saddam Hussein’s government and these al-Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.”
– Lee Hamilton, 9/11 Commission Vice Chairman, 06/17/04 – The New York Times
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/10/2006 @ 8:34 am
I wish ADA would tell me who he thinks I hate.
nk (57e995) — 8/10/2006 @ 8:37 am
…implied connections to Al Quida, and that also proved false.

How does one disprove an implication? That’s a damned good trick, disproving something that doesn’t make an assertion.

Tommorow, we disprove questions.
Pablo (efa871) — 8/10/2006 @ 9:02 am
Sorry for coming off as a troll here, but I’ve been so busy preparing the way for my jihadists masters (burning my pornography; supporting Lamont) that I haven’t had time to post on a regular basis. But every once in a while something catches my eye that just makes me drop my Koran and respond. So you can thank Ace for my (alas, belated) appearance on this thread when he (ho-ho) refutes the rubbish of the Saddam/al-Queda connection with this line from Lee Hamilton:
“…we don’t have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative relationship between Saddam Hussein’s government and these al-Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States.”
Now I know that “the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence,” has great appeal to the authoritarian mindset, but please! Is there a trained legal mind in the house?
Yes, Pat, tell your readers, would you bring that case to court? And would George W. Bush be your star witness?
“The occasion was a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. Here’s the key portion:
”[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
“THE PRESIDENT: I can’t make that claim.
“THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.”
Asinistra (ee4de5) — 8/11/2006 @ 6:55 am
Asinistra,

Nobody here said there’s a direct link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida. This argument has been fought to a standstill. People of your ilk take “no cooperative links” to mean “Al Qaida was not operating in Iraq. This, of course, is nonsense. There’s plenty of evidence that Al Qaida moved freely in and around Iraq. When a country which has attempted to assassinate one’s president allows one’s enemies free movement within its borders, it’s not inconceivable to consider that country to “have ties.” Try trolling somewhere else. It doesn’t work here.
sharon (03e82c) — 8/11/2006 @ 7:19 am
Friday Wingnut Roundup…

Wonder what the residents of Wingnutistan have to say about Holy Joe’s primary defeat? After all, they’re his biggest fans: Ann Althouse – do you think Joe will say sharp things about Democrats, or maybe fall into the arms of…
AGITPROP: Version 3.0, Featuring Blogenfreude (72c8fd) — 8/11/2006 @ 10:17 am

8/8/2006

Lamont Wins. Lamont Wins. Lamont Wins.

35 Responses to “Lamont Wins. Lamont Wins. Lamont Wins.”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out