Ned Lamont Responds to Critics

After days of hearing about how Ned Lamont’s Democratic primary victory over Joe Lieberman spells trouble for Democrats, Ned Lamont responds to his critics with an eloquent editorial piece in the Wall Street Journal:

In the past week, my victory in the Connecticut Senate primary has been labeled everything from the death knell of the Democratic Party to the signal of our party’s rebirth. Beneath all of this punditry is a question that I want to face directly: how the experience I will bring to the U.S. Senate will help Connecticut and the Democratic Party during this time of testing for our country.

I ran at a time when people said "you can’t beat a three-term incumbent," because I believed that President Bush, enabled by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, had weakened our country at home and abroad. We’re weaker economically, because we’re more dependent on foreign energy and foreign capital. Our national security has also been weakened, because we stopped fighting a real war on terror when we made the costly and counterproductive decision to go to war in Iraq.

My confidence that Connecticut was ready for a real debate and a real choice this year was founded not only on current events but also past experience. It was my career in business that shaped my outlook, and helped prepare me to run the race I did.

In 1984, with a loan from People’s Bank, I started Campus TeleVideo from scratch. Our offer was unique: Rather than provide a one-size-fits-all menu of channels, we let the customers design their cable system based on the character of the community being served.

From the moment I filled out that loan application, I’ve been in every part of the business–pulling cable, hiring workers, picking a good health-care plan, closing deals, listening to customers and fixing problems. It’s been profitable, and it’s been instructive, a quintessentially American experience. Here, entrepreneurs have the freedom to be successful in ways the rest of the world admires.

These defining lessons of my business experience are central in my campaign: identifying the challenges that face our state and offering real solutions. Something clearly worked, because the voters decided to do what our Founding Fathers envisioned; they put their trust not in a career politician but in a concerned citizen and experienced businessman who promises to rock the boat down in Washington.

Here are the four lessons of my business life that I talked about every day on the campaign trail, and that have resonated with Connecticut Democrats:

• First, entrepreneurs are frugal beasts, because the bottom line means everything. In Connecticut, voters are convinced that Washington has utterly lost touch with fiscal reality. We talked about irresponsible budget policies that have driven the annual federal deficit above $300 billion and the debt ceiling to $9 trillion. Meanwhile, the government is spending $250 million a day on an unprovoked war in Iraq while starving needed social investment at home. I am a fiscal conservative and our people want their government to be sparing and sensible with their tax dollars.
• Second, entrepreneurs invest in human resources. Our business strives to pay good wages and provide good health benefits so that we can attract employees that give us an edge in a competitive marketplace. Well-trained and well-cared-for people are essential for every business these days, particularly in a global economy. It’s getting harder and harder for American businesses to compete on price, but we innovate and change better than any economy on the planet. The quality of our work force is one of America’s competitive advantages–if our education system fails our children and our employers, we’ll lose the future.

  That’s why I talked about my work as a volunteer teacher in the Bridgeport public schools, which can’t afford to be open later than 2:30 p.m., schools that send children home to an empty house. That’s why my campaign offered a strong alternative to standardized tests and No Child Left Behind. That’s why I believe in an employer-based health-care system that covers everyone, and providing tax benefits to small businesses so they can provide insurance without risking bankruptcy.

• Third, in a market-driven economy, entrepreneurs can never lose touch with what customers, suppliers and workers are saying. A great strength of our campaign is that we embraced the grassroots and netroots, suburbs and inner cities, and used the most advanced technology to empower our door-knockers and activists. We listened hard and respectfully to what voters told us, and gave them the confidence to trust someone new.
• Finally, entrepreneurs are pragmatic. Unlike some politicians, we don’t draw a false strength from closed minds, and we don’t step on the accelerator when the car is headed off the cliff.

By every available metric, the "stay the course" strategy in Iraq is not a winning strategy. Changing course is neither extreme nor weak; it is essential for our national security.

We start with the strongest, best-trained military in the world, and we’ll keep it that way. But here’s how we’ll get stronger by changing course. We must work closely with our allies and treat the rest of the world with respect. We must implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and put in place real protections for ports, airports, nuclear facilities and public transit.

Good judgment is an essential part of good governance. But we’re bogged down in Iraq, and hamstrung in the war against terror, by leaders who lacked judgment, historical perspective, openness to other cultures and plain old common sense. We offer something different.

But in the final analysis, the results of this election say less about me, and more about the people of Connecticut. They turned out in record numbers; they spoke every day with a simple eloquence and urgency about the country we love. They oppose the war and the fiscal nightmare crafted by President Bush and his allies. But their vote, finally, was one based on pragmatism and reality, on optimism and hope. And it is to these ideals and values that we plan to address my campaign in the months until November.

Bush Admin Hurried Timing of London Arrests

Once again, sufficient reason to suspect that the Bush administration is at it again with their partisan exploitation of our nation’s war against terrorists. As we’ve learned, just a day after a strong critic of Bush’s Iraq war — and a distraction it represents from the actual war on terror — won the Democratic primary in Connecticut, we just knew that the public discourse just had to change… so, instead of the results of the Connecticut primary dominating the news headlines, the public heard of a foiled terrorists plot coming out of England. And now we have this:

Source: U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests
British wanted to continue surveillance on terror suspects, official says

By Aram Roston, Lisa Myers, and the NBC News Investigative Unit
NBC News
Updated: 8:13 p.m. ET Aug 12, 2006

LONDON - NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.

[...]

The British official said the Americans also argued over the timing of the arrest of suspected ringleader Rashid Rauf in Pakistan, warning that if he was not taken into custody immediately, the U.S. would "render" him or pressure the Pakistani government to arrest him.

Here’s How Lieberman Will Exit Indy Bid

Looks like Joe Lieberman’s exit from stage right has already been written, and it’s by a writer of compelling drama, no less — one of the creators of The West Wing:

Joe Lieberman will drop out. He probably knows right now that the day will come in late September when he will announce his withdrawal from the race. No one is going to have to talk him into it. By that time, the Democratic Party power structure will be doing its thing for Ned Lamont and Lieberman will be trailing by double digits.

It won’t be a hard decision for Lieberman. He will drop out to avoid career-ending humiliation.

Lieberman came within four points of Lamont by climbing up on the shoulders of the biggest names in the party including Clinton–Bill and Hillary. Lieberman’s TV commercial starring Bill Clinton was his best. Now, both Clintons and everyone else in the Party are carrying Lamont on their shoulders. By late September, Bill Clinton will be onstage hugging his new best friend and starring in Lamont commercials. Connecticut’s much better liked senator, Chris Dodd, will be campaigning for Lamont this time. The Clinton and Dodd defections will cost Lieberman ten points in Connecticut. If Dick Cheney continues to say nice things about Lieberman, it’ll cost him another ten points. And Lieberman campaigning alone, all alone, will look bitter, very bitter. His smile will look faker than ever. Voters aren’t drawn to bitter.

Lieberman is going to have one very big news day in late September and he’ll milk it for all its worth. That’s all his independent candidacy is going to be about–stage-managing his own exit. He didn’t want an eighteen year Senate career to disappear under ‘Lamont Wins’ headlines. He wanted his own news day, his own headline. He knows how and when to get it.

Chris Matthews: World’s Biggest A**

Once again, Chris Matthews, a man that swoons at the sound of his own voice, proves himself to be the biggest ass and peddler of disinformation on TV. Here’s Matthews asking Ned Lamont if he had anything to do with with Joe Lieberman’s web site being down:

Never mind, of course, that if Matthews and the other useful idiots in the main stream media had done any "investigative journalism" they would’ve found what this — and other — intrepid citizen found out, namely: Joe’s web site was hosted by a crappy company that could not hold up to high traffic demands on the web site.

UPDATE: Marty Kaplan weights in on Matthew’s oft-repeated attack on Liberal bloggers:

It’s funny: the entire District of Columbia is built on the exact same process that Chris Matthews describes, except that instead of people using keyboards, they use phones, and instead of blogging, they use their access to print and broadcast media, and to one another.

I lived and worked in politics and journalism in Washington for eight years, and every day, the inviolable morning ritual was that people read the papers, they watched television, and then all day long they called one another to ask, "What do you hear?" The biggest difference between the daily routine of the Beltway chattering class and the blogosphere is that the Gang of 500 (as The Note calls them) has been replaced by the dispersed and inherently more small-d democratic netroots.

Sirota: If Lamont Wins Big

Tomorrow night we’ll find out just how close the barbarians have come to crashing the gates of the DC establishment.

Anyone following national politics at any level knows that Sen. Lieberman is in the political fight of his life against challenger Ned Lamont for the Democratic nomination for Connecticut’s Senate seat; and, all things remaining as they are, tomorrow night’s victor should go on to win Connecticut’s general election in November — because the state is considered a safe "blue" seat.

A lot of pixels have been devoted to chronicling the Lieberman/Lamont race and, of late, there are a lot more pixels being devoted, by both camps, to downplaying expectations given the stakes of tomorrow’s out come. That said, I think that David Sirota has it right:

Here’s the deal folks: No matter what the outcome tomorrow - and I sure am hoping Lamont wins - we should all remember that last point: the fact that Ned Lamont and the progressive movement have mounted such a serious challenge to an entrenched incumbent with such a massive corporate-backed warchest is a HUGE ACCOMPLISHMENT. In the course of just a few months, a guy who has never run for office took on one of the most well-funded, insulated politicians in America, who used all of his clout and cashed in all of his favors to get other Big Time members of the Establishment to help him. If Ned gets within 15 points of Lieberman, it is a display of real strength, and it is a major step forward in our movement.

In his post Sirota describes four possible outcomes to tomorrow night’s Democratic primary. Here’s the outcome I’m crossing my fingers for:

Lamont wins big (by more than 5 points): Again, Xanax and Prosac fly off the shelves of DC pharmacies, though this time so does Immodium, because the Democratic Party elites get so scared, they collectively and uncontrollably begin soiling their pants. Incumbents begin worrying about whether their votes to sell out to Big Money or to preserve the Bush administration’s "stay-the-course" nonsense in Iraq will draw them a serious primary challenge. Suddenly, votes by the Democratic caucus in both the House and Senate become far more unified. Instead of huge numbers of Democrats undermining their party on core economic and national security issues, there is more party discipline than has been seen in a long time because suddenly, every Democratic lawmaker realizes that they, too, might have to actually answer to voters.

Go read Sirota’s post — and keep your fingers crossed, too, for a big Lamont win.