Ned Lamont is not 'Karl Rove's dream come true' (spin unraveled)

[ProSense]

August 07, 2006

Ned Lamont is not 'Karl Rove's dream come true'

Posted 4:00 pm | Printer Friendly

The theme of the day for Joe Lieberman's supporters is "a Lieberman defeat is exactly what Republicans want." I know, it doesn't make any sense to me, either.

But yet, that's TNR Editor Martin Peretz argued on the most conservative high-profile print real estate in the country, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

The Lamont ascendancy, if that is what it is, means nothing other than that the left is trying, and in places succeeding, to take back the Democratic Party. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters have stumped for Mr. Lamont. As I say, we have been here before. Ned Lamont is Karl Rove's dream come true. If he, and others of his stripe, carry the day, the Democratic party will lose the future, and deservedly.

Similarly, ABC's Cokie Roberts insisted yesterday that a Lamont victory would be "a disaster for the Democratic Party" and would lead to "chaos."

I have no idea what these people are talking about. If a Lamont victory would be some kind of death knell for the Democratic Party, why would the right be so anxious to support Lieberman?

more...

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8142.html#more-8142

[Atman]

1. B-I-N-G-O

And BINGO was his name-o.

[Howardx]

2. would lead to "chaos."

jusr what we need the far too long in the beltway dems runnin scared from our "chaos"

[Mabus]

5. I did a quick google search

Your post got me thinking about the number of times I've heard certain phrases denoting weakness being applied to the Democratic Party. For the fun of it, I did some quick searches on words and political parties picked from the OP and your post. I know this is indicative of nothing but I was just curious about the number of hits I'd get.

There were 12,500 hits for the phrase "disaster for the Democratic Party" but only 713 hits for the phrase "disaster for the Republican Party".

There were about 8,190,000 hits for the three words "chaos Democratic Party" but almost half as many hits (about 4,780,000) for the three words "chaos Republican Party".


It was the third combination of words that finally yielded results in favor of the Republicans being associated with weakness. There were about 362,000 hits for "running scared" and "Democrats" and 366,000 hits for "running scared" Republicans.

[AndrewJacksonFaction]

14. Try Google Trends

http://www.google.com/trends

[Mabus]

39. When I get a chance I will

Thanks for the tip. There appeared to be some trends in who was saying what. This might help in confirming those trends.

We've got a client dropping by within the hour. Hopefully I'll get to try out google trends after that. It should be interesting.

[DirtyJersey]

3. My theory...

It seems to me as though Lamont was regarded by those on the right as a fringe candidate who would embarrass the Democrats, and wanted him to win, but now that's it's becoming more clear that that's not the case, they'd rather see Lieberman win, who will likely vote with the GOP more than Lamont.

[holboz]

9. Welcome to DU, DirtyJersey! :) eom

[ProSense]

10. Welcome DirtyJersey! n/t

[Nite Owl]

4. So basically what they are

really saying is the left is screwed either way. If Lamont wins we give Rove talking points, if Leiberman wins we give them another dem to vote with them.
We got a better chance with the first choice!

[Doctor_J]

6. More like Rove's worst nightmare.

If ROve's poodles on our side of the aisle start getting booted from office, investigations will soon follow.

[bigbrother05]

7. Think it means that the GOP has realized

that all their nice talk about their old buddy, bipartisan Joe was a big part of his tanking numbers. They've decided at the last minute that if they say how much it will help them for Lamont to win, they might swing it in their favor (for Joe).

Typical Rove maneuver, when you're losing, say that that's how you always wanted it to be. In their world, they always win, no matter what the final score says (heads I win, tails you lose). At least that's the story they'll use to convince the backwash they got their wish. They realize that at the first sign of weakness, their base will turn on them with a vengeance.

[CBHagman]

8. Here's a practical consideration: dividing the party.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not counseling support for Joe Lieberman (and I don't live in Connecticut, so it's not as though I have to think about how to vote tomorrow).

But wartime has brought divisions in the Democratic Party on more than occasion, with disastrous results in terms of actually uniting to win elections and therefore make policy. We got Nixon and Lowell Weicker that way, from what I recall.

I have a simple mathematical concern about some of the Senate races this year (for example, Cantwell's in Washington state). Democratic activists of the antiwar division could be so intent on punishing those who voted for the Iraq war that we wind up with a veto-proof GOP majority in the Senate.

It could definitely happen, folks.

There is a huge, huge difference between getting what you want and being successful, and elections are full of cases of unintended consequences.

[Mz Pip]

22. 1972

comes to mind and the loss set back the progressive movement in this country. The anti-war Democrats overestimated the strength of the anti-war movement. Most people may not have liked the war but that did not mean they supported the anti-war movement. Nixon had his "Peace with Honor" BS and mainstream voters found that preferable to campuses being shut down and riots in the streets, which was what the anti-war movement became tied to.

The Republicans aren't supporting Lieberman because they like Lieberman. In doing so, they divide the party and make Lieberman appear much more of a Bush puppet than he really is. Then Rove will use a Lamont win to portray the Democratic Party as one that has been taken over by the far left. Pushing out moderates is not a way to take back the Senate. Consensus wins elections. Demanding ideological purity does not. We could win one battle and end up losing the war.

If we still have 50% of the people in this country deluding themselves enough to believe Iraq had WMDs then how do you think they will be voting come Nov?

The law of unintended consequences could play a role in ways we cannot yet forsee. Lieberman is hardly my favorite Democrat but he's a whole lot better than any Republican out there.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[wisteria]

26. This is not 1972 and many of those who oppose Lieberman are

not doing so simply because he is pro-war. It is his outspokenness and his willingness to snub his own party and openly support President Bush that has brought about this challenge. He has permitted himself to be used by the Republicans for their benefit and has forsaken and allowed his actions to be used against our party. It make one question his loyalty.
There will always be room for moderate voices in our party, but for to long, the "people" have been ignored. It is the Republicans and the media that tag those that oppose Lieberman as "far Left". I challenge that description and suggest that if Senator Lieberman loses it will be the will of the people of CT.who have decided that he has ceased to really represent them, rather then the "far left- anti-war party people who have decided for them.

[Mz Pip]

35. History repeats itself

but not always in the same ways, so I hope that you are right. If Lamont wins then it is mandatory that this win not be perceived as a victory for the far left but as a victory for the people. Like it or not perception in politics means a lot. I wish him well if he wins. But if he does he will have to find a way to counter the spin that will be attached to this victory.

The spin will be there and Dems had better find a way to deal with it. It's been killing them and it really should have to be. The message of the Democratic Party is one that should resonate with all Americans. The Dems have not been able to control the message, primarily because they are the minority party but also because they don't seem to do offense well. We shall see.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Oak2004]

45. This is sooo not 1972

In 1972 the country was much more sharply divided, with the antiwar movement associated with a youth "counterculture" and calls for revolution by sometimes-armed groups. Even I, a McGovern precinct organizer, strongly disliked the counterculture, and if I weren't able to draw the distinctions between the political issues and hippiedom, I too would have been a Nixon supporter.

That division lingered for many years, but it's not alive and well anymore, except in the minds of a few extremists. In fact the nearest equivalent, from a sociological perspective, to the 60s/70s counterculture, is Christian fundamentalism.

Coupled with all of that was what I can only describe as the degeneration of the Democratic party structure. The weak political structure at the local level was one of the reasons I chose in those days to be a liberal Republican, rather than a Democrat. Among the Democrats I could expect a whole lot of nothing; as a Republican I could expect professional training in the art of campaigning and a disciplined local party structure.

That too is changing, with Dean's effort to rebuild the party structure and the birth of countless internet-based and/or internet-using organizations and discussion groups.

Finally, the Democratic Party itself was shattered with doubt at the time. The Vietnam war was, after all, a Democratic war (at least as far as it's escalation: yes, I know the tale of Vietnam goes back to Eisenhower, but Ike didn't push through the Tonkin Gulf resolution). There weren't just a few DINOs favoring the war, as in now -- the Democratic Party was closely divided, and even within the anti-war Democrats, there were many who were quite lukewarm about "working within the system".

I don't see doubts around me today. I see furious Americans, some of whom have never voted before, or who are disgruntled Republicans, united in their belief that Republicans must go.

I was around in 1972. Believe me, this is not 1972.

[wisteria]

25. I don't think the point is to go after all in our party that supported

the war. IMO, it's about Lieberman's outspokenness and seemingly self interest that has angered people. It is one thing to disagree, it is another to make sure everybody knows about it, and to allow the opposing party to use you for their gain.

[Ken Burch]

29. What's the answer? You can't seriously be arguing that the progressive

wing of the party is obligated to surrender to the rightists in the name of the greater Democratic good.

That approach has failed in every election since 1996 and it will fail every time it's ever tried again.

See:the definition of insanity.

[MrBenchley]

11. Sure he is...the Republicans had no chance at all in Connecticut

six months ago....and now the far left has fucked it up royally.

[w4rma]

13. May I suggest that banning everybody's guns doesn't help Dems? (nt)

[MrBenchley]

18. Suggest anything you like....

It's not like your proposals are worth hearing....

Don't you ever get tired of channeling NRA propaganda and hysteria?

[w4rma]

19. I rest my case. (nt)

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moochy]

27. Blame blame blame

Oh so Lieberman shares no part of the blame? Apparently it's all radical communist hippies ganging up on the DLC superstar candidate?

[MrBenchley]

36. And up pops Moochy to demonstrate the truth of what I said....

Hahahahaha.....

[Moochy]

40. laugh it up

laugh while you can...l wager you won't be laughing tonight when your 'joementum' carries Lamont to victory...

Now runalong and go download some new talkingpoints MrBenchley.

[MrBenchley]

44. Every time I see one of your badly written silly posts, I laugh

[Moochy]

46. I spell check them....

Oh sorry, I dont have a "Check this post with Al From" button in my window like you.

[gulfcoastliberal]

47. I don't see a difference between runnning as a green or "independent dem"

Admit it, loony Lieberman lost the primary and is not the democratic nominee. Lieberman is no different than Nader. Lieberman needs to dropout of the race and so the true democratic candidate can run his campaign without being sabotaged by repulicans supporting Liebrmans run as a Green or whatever he calls it.

[Ken Burch]

31. If Lieberman runs as an independent after losing the primary

You have NO RIGHT to blame Democrats if the seat goes GOP.

Lieberman is wrong on the war, and even YOU have to realize that, fool.

[MrBenchley]

37. Pout louder, Kenny....it's so cute when you do

[Ken Burch]

41. Benchley Auto-Slur #3.

nt.

[boolean]

38. Seriously, you're a republican

Just join them already. Every time you use "far left", you show your true colors.

[Moochy]

42. But the ellipses and the snickers.. so compelling!!

MrB always uses these "..." so effectively that he must be on our side right?
and the (snickers) and the open scorn and accusations of "whining" he levels to any poster who calls him on his bullshit tactics..

...and yet.. he is always, always, always, here, day in, day out, spewing his disdain for this demonic "left wing."

And many may ask "why is that, that he can openly flaunt the rules?" but don't you dare EVER bring up why he is allowed to remain a poster here, you would be asking the "wrong questions."

[TankLV]

43. Amen.

[KingFlorez]

12. Yes, it is

Cokie Roberts is right, this would lead to nothing but chaos. It would send the message that there is no room for diverse thinking in the Democratic party.

[Mr_Spock]

17. lol - I assume you said that tongue-in-cheek

It's hardly diverse thinking to go along with the majority party in fighting a meaningless war that is killing thousands. It takes a lot more guts to be against war in this violence loving country.

[Vincardog]

23. It would send the message that there is no room for diverse thinking in

the Democratic party. BS. It would send the message that their is no room for Corporate Fascists and commander bunny pants enablers in the Democratic party.

[Ken Burch]

30. COKIE ROBERTS?

We should take political advice from the woman who said, on the day after the 1994 defeat, that Dems lost congress because there was a "shift to the left" after Clinton was sworn in?

The woman who said that the Nicaraguan election result in 1990 vindicated the Contra War?

The woman who got reprimanded by her bosses at ABC for using a video backdrop to fake a live report from the White House?

Are you absolutely out of your friggin' GOURD, sport?

[Pharaoh]

15. same thing they said about Dean

it's reverse psychology,

they are afraid!

[girl gone mad]

16. The powered elites are acting like chickens...

with their heads cut off.

A Lamont victory would be a disaster for all status quo incumbents. I really hope he is victorious and that his victory sets off a chain reaction, because the status quo would be a disaster for our country.

[w4rma]

20. REMEMBER, THE PRIMARY IS TOMORROW, TUESDAY the 8TH.

Let's take this lying, flip-flopping, endorsed by DeLay, Cokie, Coutler and Hannity, warmongering, neo-liberal (neo-con?), out with the TRASH!

The GET OUT THE VOTE campaign really starts **tomorrow**, bright and early!! Drive folks to the polls and volunteer!

Goooo Connecticut Dems!!!

[Canuckistanian]

24. But Lieberman is Hannity's boy

And also Coulter's and DeLay's and Malkin's!

These right-wing extremists must see SOMETHING in a Lieberman victory.

No way, this is going to be a defeat that will have them all buying "Depends" stock.

[Ken Burch]

28. Why SHOULDN'T the "left" take the party back from the left-bashers?

We all know that anti-left Dems can't win anymore. So why should they get any special deference?

We haven't gained a single vote in years by having our candidates trash the party's core principles.

And those core principles are social justice, worker's rights and the struggle for peace.

Big war budgets, tight domestic and corporate-drafted trade deals are only supported by straight ticket Republicans.

[AtomicKitten]

32. familiar bullshit

"a Lieberman defeat is exactly what Republicans want"

sounds a lot like

"a Hillary candidacy in 2008 is the Republicans' wet dream"

[sampsonblk]

33. A Lamont Win = start of a real opposition party

Perhaps the other Dems on the ballot will figure out that their jobs are in jeopardy if they don't start serving the public as they promised.