WP, Froomkin: Does CT mark the emergence of an anti-Bush voting bloc?

[DeepModem Mom]

The Anti-Bush Movement
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, August 9, 2006

Political fledgling Ned Lamont's unlikely triumph over President Bush's favorite Democrat in the Connecticut Senate primary lends itself to all sorts of fascinating interpretations -- and one is that it could mark the emergence of an anti-Bush voting bloc.

Lamont's out-of-nowhere victory, fueled by his depiction of incumbent Joseph Lieberman as a presidential patsy, suggests a political awakening of that sizeable group of Americans who intensely disapprove of Bush, his war in Iraq, and pretty much anything else he touches.

Consider that, according to the latest Washington Post poll, a near-majority of Americans -- 46 percent -- strongly disapprove of the job Bush is doing. That's strongly....On Iraq, which is the dominant political issue going into the 2006 election, 62 percent disapprove of Bush's leadership (52 percent strongly).

Political guru Karl Rove won his boss a second term in 2004 by making that election less a referendum on Bush as on his opponent, John Kerry. But the potential here is that the 2006 congressional elections could turn out to be the "accountability moment" that Bush retroactively claimed the 2004 election to have been, in a Washington Post interview in January 2005.

That's certainly what Lamont was telling Connecticut voters yesterday, in a message on his Web site: "Your vote will determine the national headlines tomorrow: 'Connecticut Democrats show support for war, President Bush' or 'Democrats in Connecticut foreshadow national call for accountability in Iraq.' Your call."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

[rubberducky]

1. Yahoooooooooooooo!!!!

LOve this article!! Thanks for posting!:)

[KansDem]

2. You know, this is the 800-pound gorilla the Media refuses to acknowledge

And that's the fact that a majority of Americans voted against His Royal Flatulence in 2000.

But at no time has the Corporate Media acknowledged this. They would rather try to explain it with reference to the newly-coined "Anti-Bush Movement." But at no time will the Media whores admit that Bush received fewer votes than Gore. At no time will they admit that Lamont's victory was the vengeance of the majority of voters who were cheated in 2000...

And 2004...

[spooky3]

3. Interesting, thanks!

[MaineDem]

4. BINGO

Now that's what I'm talking about!

[JerseygirlCT]

5. Gee, you think? Maybe the same block that actually won

in 2004?

Sheesh, these people are slow.

[tanyev]

6. Yeah, baby!

:headbang: