NYT: Prominent Dems switch to Lamont, but unity more elusive at grassroots

[DeepModem Mom]

Connecticut Feels Strain of a Rematch at the Polls
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and AVI SALZMAN
Published: August 12, 2006

....After Mr. Lieberman’s primary loss, many prominent Democrats switched their support to Mr. Lamont and called for the party to unite behind him. But that unity may be a more elusive goal at the grass-roots level. Only a handful of those Lieberman supporters interviewed said they would switch to Mr. Lamont, signaling the difficulties he may have attracting Connecticut’s moderate voters in a general election....

***

Most of the nearly three dozen Lieberman supporters interviewed said that they opposed the war in Iraq but were unwilling to vote against the senator based on a single issue. Many praised his experience and his record on jobs and education. Others said Mr. Lieberman’s decision to run as an independent squared easily with his past willingness to part ways with his party when his beliefs required it....

***

Some even said they had flirted with supporting Mr. Lamont after the primary, but decided to back Mr. Lieberman after the news on Thursday that British authorities had foiled a terrorist plot to detonate homemade bombs on planes crossing the Atlantic....

***

According to a survey of Democratic primary voters leaving polling places on Tuesday in Connecticut, conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, 39 percent said Mr. Lieberman should run as an independent in November.

But there are still nearly three months for Mr. Lamont to make his case to Lieberman supporters. Tom Swan, Mr. Lamont’s campaign manager, said that overwhelming support from local Democratic officials and heightened efforts to introduce Mr. Lamont to voters would be “instrumental in bringing the vast majority of Democrats home in November.”...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/12/nyregion/12voices.html?hp&ex=1155441600&en=2df3fec8cbe00dc8&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Donnachaidh]

1. the fearmongering still works

these people need to wake up and vote AGAINST lieberman *because* of the attack. We would NOT be in this position if BushCo hadn't de-stabilized the ME.

Get the warmongers OUT.

[MrBenchley]

5. Be sure and call them warmongers

that will bring them flocking to Lamont (snicker)

[bluestateguy]

2. Who are these two clowns who wrote this article?

Are they interns for Adam Nagourney?

("but, but, the Democrats don't have a plan...")

[patricia92243]

3. Anybody know if Lamont is scheduled for any of the talk show on Sunday?

If Liberman is on and Lamont is not on, I'm going to puke!!!

[calico1]

4. A totally pro Lieberman article.

:eyes:

[HereSince1628]

6. Well "most" of 36 could actually be 19

If Lieberman loses 40% of those dems that supported him, he'll end up needing all the R's. And to get them I suspect he'll be forced remain in the far right position he has recently adopted. That could alienate even more Democrats.

[LoZoccolo]

7. Let the chastisement begin!

Everybody knows, the best way to win these voters to Lamont, is to accuse them of being Republican warmongers, and no different from Bush*! There is no surer way to get them to pull the lever your way!

_{NOTE: This post is sarcastic.}

[skipos]

8. And everybody knew the way for Lieberman to win the primary

was for him to use Republican talking points and promise to thwart the will of Democratic voters if he didn't like the primary results.

That's a great way to win over Democrats.

:eyes:

[CTLawGuy]

9. excellent retort

:)

[CTLawGuy]

10. Shouldn't you be happy?

your guy won the primary!

[Eric J in MN]

11. Bush voter supports Lieberman.

“We didn’t cast ballots for anyone else,” said Richard Pescatore, who stood with his wife, Lili, in a mall food court in Waterbury. Though a registered Democrat for four decades, Mr. Pescatore said he voted to re-elect President Bush in 2004 and would definitely support Mr. Lieberman in November.

Like others, Mr. Pescatore said appeals for party unity mattered little to him. “Lamont was saying Lieberman was undermining the Democratic agenda,” he said. “I don’t know what the Democratic agenda is.”



(end of that NY Times article)