C’mon People!!

Did you think I was kidding when I asked you to send 10 emails to friends asking for cash for Hank Johnson??

I’ve gotten like 3 emails from people who’ve said they did it. I’m feeling depressed and ashamed. Where’s my vast influence? Where’s the legions of people ready to stand up and follow the banner of…wait a minute, I’m not Kos.

Seriously, please do step up and send some emails to friends and ask them to send $10 or more to Hank at http://www.hankforcongress.com/contribute. You’ll feel better in the morning…

55 thoughts on “C’mon People!!”

  1. …wait a minute, I’m not Kos.

    More to the point, I’m not George Soros.

    I’m still trying to wrap my head around this idea of giving money to a Democrat. My id says, “Why would you want to give money to a Democrat? You know the Democrats are going to get all of your money some day anyway, in return for which you’ll get a lecture about what a bad person you are for having the gall to make money in the first place. Are you trying to do their job for them? Why don’t you just move to Madison, Wisconsin and run for City Politburo?”

    Being a fairly good Republican, I listen to my reptilian brain stem as much as possible.

    I know what you’re going to say: “Cynthia McKinney.” And yes, my blood runs cold and each separate hair doth stand on end like quills upon the fretful porpentine. But then I think: What if Hank Johnson quits after one term, like Denise Majette did? Then Jihad Cindy comes right back like kudzu. Am I going to get a refund, or what?

  2. Good for you Glen. Save your money and if you feel compelled to contribute to a candidate, don’t throw it away on one that you know if going to vote the wrong way on pretty much every issue. There are a lot of races that matter and could effect the makeup of Congress and/or who will be running for President in 2008. The primary contest between Johnson and McKinney isn’t one of them because at the end of the day, they’ll pretty much vote the same way and that is what matters.

  3. Wishard nails it.

    Why on earth would anyone expect a bunch of Republicans on a Republican blog to send in money to a democrat candidate just because a Republican who pretends to be a democrat asked them to?

    That said, it was interesting hearing his thoughts and hilarious reading many of the comments he evoked.

  4. I don’t even give money to the Libertarian Party.

    Me neither, they’re a joke and they’ve made it clear that their goal is to act as a spoiler in close races in order to get more Democrats elected. The theory being that when a more liberal candidate gets elected, Republicans will naturally interpret the election of the candidate favoring the biggest and most costly government as a clear sign that voters really want smaller government.

  5. “You’ll feel better in the morning”

    But I already feel pretty good! What if I feel worse?

    Seriously, how do you think I’m going to feel if this guy gets elected and casts the tie-breaking vote to end funding for Iraqi support in 2007?

    I’m sure he is a nice guy. His blogging and reaching out are outstanding, and the lord knows that I would support Barney Fife instead of the current idiot McKinney in there, but isn’t it the norm for underdogs to be so great? Isn’t everybody who wants to get elected approachable, polite, reasonable, and intelligent? AFTER they get elected, somehow, it always seems like the situation changes. Once they get to D.C., the party leader usually has a “me chief, you indian” talk with them, and then they’re just part of the system that we all love to hate so much. When they get home again, then it’s back to Mr. Nice And Reasonable Guy.

    I’m not trying to be cynical, but I remember the Newt revolution in the 90s. Where is my balanced budget? My term limits? My line item veto? Were those guys all liars, or is the system screwed up to such a degree that the quality of the person doesn’t matter much any more?

    Nope. You guys are great, and I respect your opinion and your taking a stand, but no money from me. The government already takes a huge hunk by force of law. I’m supporting orphans in the Congo. Mr. Johnson will have to make his big difference without my lunch money. Apologies if I stepped on anyone’s toes, but that is the way I feel.

  6. Thorley Winston,

    My point is, I don’t give money to the LP, so why should I give money to the two parties that represent my viewpoints even less?*

    *Disclaimer: I have given money to at least one of the major parties in the past and maybe both. Not anymore.

  7. Castillon

    I don’t even give money to the Libertarian Party.

    Obviously, it’s irresponsible to give money to people who are only going to buy marijuana with it.

    On the other hand, Davebo almost makes me change my mind about giving money to Hank Johnson. Johnson at least seems like a guy who won’t put my money in his freezer. Plus, annoying Davebo would give me an immediate dividend on my investment.

    There’s also an absurdist element that appeals to me. Davebo, a Democrat, is trying to stop Republicans from giving money to a fellow Democrat, and accusing a fellow Democrat of being a Republican for asking us to. It would be very Zen, if there was such a thing as Zen.

  8. Glen Wishard,

    Obviously, it’s irresponsible to give money to people who are only going to buy marijuana with it.

    That doesn’t seem per se irresponsible.

  9. Saying there is no Zen is a very Zen thing to do, of course.

    And I’m not sure who I’m crankier at – Davebo, who thinks that Iraq defines one’s membership in the Democratic Party, or Thorley Winston, who thinks that by being curmudgeonly, he’s adding appreciably to the dialog around here.

    Davebo – guess what, I’m a Democrat for as long as I choose to be. And we’ll see in November how the precious Kossacks do. It’s a simple test, if they turn out new voters and elect candidates, they’ll win. If they drive them away and lose seats, they lose. I know where my bet is placed.

    Daniel – you think the votes on Iraq are more or less likely to go our way with Cynthia in office? More important, when the second wave of thisissue hits – when it hits the fan two to three years from now – who would you rather have voting? Who’s more likely to be amenible to rational thought and response?

    A.L.

  10. Davebo, a Democrat, is trying to stop Republicans from giving money to a fellow Democrat, and accusing a fellow Democrat of being a Republican for asking us to.

    I’m trying to stop you? Wow, you are extremely easy to demoralize I guess. Not sure at all how you arrived at that.

    And no offense to Marc, but I can understand voting for Bush in 2000. I think it was a bad idea, but I could understand it.

    However any pretense of membership in the democratic party (I’m a registered independant by the way) was washed away by supporting Dubya in 2004.

    Even if your “transforming the middle east” pipe dream was riding on it.

  11. “…Daniel – you think the votes on Iraq are more or less likely to go our way with Cynthia in office? More important, when the second wave of thisissue hits – when it hits the fan two to three years from now – who would you rather have voting? Who’s more likely to be amenible to rational thought and response?…”

    No. But I will not have the guilt of contributing to the man that cast that vote. Maybe others would rather play politics or spoilers, but I can’t give to a guy who might run away from the fight. Wars are kind of important things to me.

    Who would I rather have voting? How about my representative? Isn’t that the point of representative democracy? I like Goode, Warner, and Allen. Why would I send money to some other race? Aren’t the people in those districts better qualified and more important than me?

    Hey — Thompson is a great guy. No doubt. I would vote for him easily over the nut-case if he were running here. But I’m a Libertarian. That means something. The system has serious problems. Why would I give money to perpetuate them?

    So if I had a Billion dollars to make some kind of difference in the world, what would I do? I would make some sort of annuity to support thinktanks. Politicians will come and go, and in the end they are all just extortionists anyway, right? But research? Lots of hard thougt about important issues? Priceless.

    If you want to beat the system by being part of it, write the check. But just not me.

  12. Davebo:

    Wow, you are extremely easy to demoralize I guess.

    Now you’ve gone and done it. That was one katyusha too many.

    After some thought and a couple of beers, I went “here”:http://www.hankforcongress.com/contribute and donated $30 to Hank Johnson for Congress. It is a very modest contribution, but for me it is rich in symbolic significance. Here’s why I did it:

    1. As long as we have to have Democrats in Congress, we might as well have one who isn’t crazier than a sackful of bobcats. Besides, Johnson supports Israel when it would be easy for him not to, which shows guts and integrity, two of my favorite things. Already he surpasses the famous Euston manifesto-mongers in my estimation.

    2. I’ve believed since 9/11 that we have to transcend the endless stupidity of Democrats vs. Republicans. And yet in my weaker moments I’ve been in there throwing bricks and rotten cabbages with the rest of you neanderthals. This is my chance to make some amends.

    3. I don’t want Armed Liberal to become another Kos: frustrated, bitter, glassy-eyed, poisoning the very well that he drinks from – pouring out his anguish in terse little posts that, in spite of the profound passions that inspire them, are devoid of any insight, compassion, intelligence, or even interesting metaphorical imagery. And I don’t want him renewing his subscription to the LA Times.

    4. I’d like to see some of the Winds-bashing contrarians put up or shut up now. What exactly is your specific malfunction, boys and girls? Do you really support Cynthia McKinney, and merely lack the courage to come right out and say so? Does it annoy you to see Republicans and Democrats agree about something, does it violate your narrow metaphysical reality? Or does it just hurt you (deep down inside) when someone suggests that your political religion could use a trifle bit of reforming?

    Anyway, that’s why I gave some money to a Democrat. Be sure to watch the news tomorrow, because Hell is going to freeze over and monkeys are going to fly out of Katie Couric’s mouth.

  13. “And we’ll see in November how the precious Kossacks do. It’s a simple test, if they turn out new voters and elect candidates, they’ll win. If they drive them away and lose seats, they lose. I know where my bet is placed.”

    So should we judge the value of your idealogy by how much money you raise for Hank Johnson, or whether he defeats McKinney?

  14. On the one hand we have an unCivil Democrat with policies I can’t support. On the other hand we have a Civil Democrat with policies I can’t support.

    Let me go down the issues list:

    Education Nothing about the teachers unions, vouchers, charter schools. Hank’s policy? More Federal Money.

    Like that has been such a great success.

    Iraq & Foreign Policy Not totally bad. No time table. Against civil war. On North Korea – no mention of missile defence. Iran is bad. No policy ideas. That not is real helpful. Also no mention of the fact that Iraq is very close to Iran. That would negate the Bush bashing. In other words probably as tolerable as we can expect from a Democrat.

    Privacy & Civil LibertiesAll domestic intel gathering must be done with a warrant. I’m not so sure. I might say most or much. All goes a bit far. He does acknowledge we are in a war. So there is that. I’m sticking with as tolerable as we can expect from a Democrat.

    EnvironmentHe says gasoline prices are up. I’ve noticed that too. So does he want more drilling for oil in places that are now off limits? More oil refining capacity? Of course not. He is a Democrat. We need more alternavie fuels, fuel cell research etc. Good policy. No immediate (within one Congressional term) impact on gas prices. He worries about climate change. No mention on how he expects to do anything about it except for passing laws to decrease CO2 output in transportation and industry. So he wants to cripple the American economy. I don’t see that as a plus. No mention of how he intends to control Chinese and Indian outputs. I see this as a jobs outsourcing program. No mention of what he is going to do about increased solar output. Still, as tolerable as we can expect from a Democrat.

    EnvironmentHealth care is a right. He doesn’t mention where that is mentioned in the Declaration or the Constitution. Perhaps he will vote to prevent death in all cases no matter the cost. After all it is a right. Then there is the old “if we can send a man to the moon…” which we actually haven’t done lately due to the expense. Absolutely no mention of the cost or how he intends to impliment the policy. No talk of how rationing will be handled – by the market or by government. Guarenteed heath care. Guarenteed prescription drugs. No discussion of why so many Canadians head south for care. Just a bunch of rights talk. Typical for a Democrat.

    And then my favorite pet peeve: The Drug War. It is devastating the black community. Alcohol prohibition redux. Devastating violence in the black communities. People jailed for medical problems (perhaps it ought to be a health care issue). Silence.

    No mention of the engine that is going to have to pay for all this – capitalism. No talk of decreasing the regulatory or tax burden on business to crank out the wealthy needed for all these rights.

    Even if I had money (I’m between assignments) I’m not sure I would send any. Now maybe a die hard Communist/Progressive/Liberal would go for this. Not me.

    However, if Hank wants to do something about Drug Prohibition I’m available. For free even (for a while).

    I hope this has helped.

  15. Dear Truther –

    I’ve saved your comment, and if you’d left a real email address, I’d have sent it back to you. Feel free to email me if you’d like a copy.

    You’re hijacking a thread; if I ever do a post on 9/11 conspiracies, or 9/11 in general, you’re welcome to post it again. But stay on topic, mmmmkay?

    A.L.

  16. Some typos in the last section. Revised and possibly extended:

    Health Care Health care is a right. He doesn’t say where that is mentioned in the Declaration or the Constitution. Perhaps he will vote to prevent death in all cases no matter the cost. After all it is a right. Then there is the old “if we can send a man to the moon…” which we actually haven’t done lately due to the expense. Absolutely no mention of the cost or how he intends to impliment the policy. No talk of how rationing will be handled – by the market or by government. Guarenteed heath care. Guarenteed prescription drugs. No discussion of why so many Canadians head south for care. Just a bunch of rights talk. Typical for a Democrat.

    And then my favorite pet peeve: The Drug War. It is devastating the black community. Alcohol prohibition redux. Creates devastating violence in the black communities. People jailed for medical problems (Perhaps it ought to be a health care issue – no mention of having the police cure cancer. Probably an oversight). Silence on the issue.

    No mention of the engine that is going to have to pay for all this – capitalism. No talk of decreasing the regulatory or tax burden on business to crank out the wealth needed to pay for all these rights.

    Even if I had money (I’m between assignments) I’m not sure I would send any. Now maybe a die hard Communist/Progressive/Liberal would go for this. Not me.

    However, if Hank wants to do something about Drug Prohibition I’m available. For free even (for a while).

    I hope this has helped.

  17. #17 Truther,

    I believe 911 was outsourced. It is a shame. I blame it on Bush. Far too many jobs going to India, China, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

    Something must be done.

    I’m putting on my tinfoil thinking cap as we speak. I expect an answer in twenty or thirty years. I’ll let you know.

    OTOH keep up the good work. If more people knew what you know more Democrats would get elected. Go Cynthia!!!!

  18. #8,

    Actually it is very responsible to give money to people who will buy marijuana with it. Some fun will be had. People will feel better.

    I’m not sure anyone can say the same about government.

  19. Would somebody please step on Truther the Amazing Spam-crapper and goosh him like a June Bug? He is off-topic in a begging thread because he obviously robs parking meters in Berkeley for a living, and therefore has no honest money to give.

  20. Andy –

    Ideology is only a small part of it, it’s the larger game called politics. We tend to substitute the technical mechanics of it and call that “politics” when it reality it’s a much larget process.

    Right now, a group is fighting for control of the Democratic Party and ultimately of the country. In part their politics will be judged by whether they are successful at a) and b) and then, if they make that hurdle, at what impact they have on events.

    Personally, I think they will fail at a) (and so not get a shot at b) or events); we’ll see.

    A.L.

  21. AL,

    So if I read your (rather obtuse) answer correctly, you’re saying for Kos it’s mostly about politics but not ideology, but for you it’s…well, I guess you really haven’t answered my simple question about your own motivation/ideology or how we should judge its worth in the body politic or society, for that matter.

    I’ll pass for the moment on challenging two of the inherent suppositions imbedded in your response that I think are simple-minded and wrong (1/that “Kos” is “fighting for control of the Democratic party” rather than simply providing a mechanism for promoting certain values and beliefs, which does involve (shockingly perhaps to you) political advocacy, and 2/ your use of the term “THEY” to bundle together a huge and diverse group of individuals with differing and sometimes even competing interests under the banner of “KOS”) to give you another opportunity to answer my question.

  22. And by the way, an ad from Hank Johnson (with the slogan “Beat Cynthia McKinney) is featured prominenty at the Daily Kos homepage.

    So I really don’t see where this notion that KOS is “fighting for control of the Dem party” and will lead them over a cliff (to your apparent satisfaction), proving the worthlessness of their ideology and/or approach in the process, comes from.

    One explanation that springs to mind is that you really don’t give a fart about the Democratic party (or lets even be more generous, a strong opposition to the Republicans) or helping to advance Liberal causes.

    Or maybe you’re suffering from Kos Derangement Syndrome.

  23. > You’ll feel better in the morning…

    Well, reading this thread made me smile. Good arguments both ways, or all three ways, with lefty Dems demoralizing righty Reps and making them blue… or something.

    Back from my visit to http://www.hankforcongress.com, where I plunked down my token sum, just as I would for a Repub who I thought would be a much better officeholder. I may not get a primary vote any more, but as an Indy, I get to view the handwringing here as a spectator sport. Almost worth the trade.

  24. A.L.,

    I have to admit that Hank is right enough for me on the war. Thus he has passed hurdle #1.

    However, like most Communists he does not get capitalism. He does not get that to pay for all the wonderfulness he wants there is going to have to be more profit. Because, so far, government only taxes profit. I suppose if we started eating our capital we could give his programs a shot for a few years before collapse.

    Funny thing is that just as I do not wish to see our system collapsed by external enemies, neither do I wish to see it collapsed by internat stupidity.

  25. Well, I’ve read enough to know that I wasn’t likely to get any straight or coherent answers out of you here, but I thought I’d try anyway since I’m having insomnia…actually, I do think you helped me with that, thanks.

  26. Andy,

    I’d love to see a strong opposition party.

    The real world shows we have enemies. Thus a strong defence capable of offence. Death to dictators. As fast as we can manage.

    The real world shows that capitalism creates wealth. Even Marx knew this.

    That is two strikes against the current Dems.

    That leaves social policy where the Ds typically are heads and shoulders above the Rs (mostly).

    So the real world demands a convergence.

    I pointed this out two, three, years ago. Here.

    Socialism has died. It has not gone to heaven.

    Republished on my site. Originally done here.

    Take it to heart. Once the Ds get in touch with reality then they will be a strong opposition. Until then they will get weaker and weaker.

    Sad because we could use a strong opposition to keep the Rs honest.

  27. So…AL is passing a hat for Hank and Hank is sending a check to Kos for ad space? Who says irony is dead?

  28. I kinda would be interested in an answer to Davebo’s implicit question. Some of the people on this site, myself included, were critical of net efforts to unseat Joe Lieberman, pointing out that out-of-staters were attempting to mess with another state’s choice of representation. Is there a difference or has the race to the bottom already begun?

  29. Right now, a group is fighting for control of the Democratic Party and ultimately of the country.

    Andy, you are correct that you won’t get a straight answer out of AL. And if you read the quote above you might understand why.

    Marc takes it as a given that the democrats will eventually take over control of the federal government. I tend to agree with him given the disaster that is the current GOP.

    What Marc realizes, but refuses to admit, is he happily supported the actions of the GOP that will eventually drown them.

    All of this BS about “Kossacks” and really, that’s all it is, is a smoke screen in which he attempts to hide his own complicity in the mess that has been created over the past five years.

    Basically he projects on the ubiquitous “Kossacks” because frankly, what else could he possibly do?

    On other blogs you’ll hear discussions about the dreaded Kossacks reaching out to Libertarians. But not here. They are evil don’t ya know.

    And the word “evil” has been transformed into a crutch these days.

  30. PD Shaw,

    So out of staters are trying to get rid a Joe Lieberman???

    Odd claim considering the majority of Lieberman’s funding has come from out of state wouldn’t you say?

    Not to mention ignoring actual polls conducted in the state.

  31. PD – I actually had a paragraph on that issue exactly when I did the original post on Johnson, but editied it out because I thought it was distracting; it was certainly something I thought about.

    There are in my mind two key differences; First, and foremost that Lamont’s campign is to a large extent the creature of the netroots (he obvious has support in CT, but he had dialog with them before he declared, and they have been integral to his strategy). Next, and kind of instrumentally, Lamont doesn’t have a significant chance of winning. I don’t much like Lieberman, as I’ve said. I’d love to see a candidate who I like better take his seat. But it’s colossal hubris to attack a sitting candidate who’s almost certain to be in the chair in DC in January, whether with a D- or an I- after his name.

    Johnson’s campaign was organic (to the extent that any large campaign can be). I didn’t solicit him to run, and only got involved when he’d already – with a strong local base – forced McKinney into a runoff without any blog attention.

    And Johnson has a darn good chance of winning.

    So, like it or not, there’s my explanation…

    A.L.

  32. And I’m not sure who I’m crankier at – Davebo, who thinks that Iraq defines one’s membership in the Democratic Party, or Thorley Winston, who thinks that by being curmudgeonly, he’s adding appreciably to the dialog around here.

    Oh I think I have added to the dialogue. I’ve reminded a number of people on the starboard side of the Ditch or those inclined towards that side that issues and votes matter more than personality. Johnson doesn’t differ appreciably from McKinney in how he would actually vote and the benefit of replacing one with the other would be aesthetically rather than substantively.

    Also we have a lot of heavily contested races going on in the nation (including three in my own State) where the outcome could affect who controls Congress and who runs for President in 2008. IMO it’s perfectly valid for conservatives and Republicans who despise McKinley to think twice about rather they’d like to extend their finite resources helping one leftist Democrat replace another leftist Democrat (who has been wholly ineffective in actually doing anything which makes her more annoying than threatening) or use to improve their own party.

  33. On other blogs you’ll hear discussions about the dreaded Kossacks reaching out to Libertarians. But not here. They are evil don’t ya know.

    I think you’ll find the general consenus around here is that Kossacks (or KosKiddies, which I believe is the preferred nomenclature) aren’t actually “evil”; they’re just idiots. Loud, foul-mouthed idiots with a mob mentality, but not necessarily evil. That designation is usually reserved for actual Communists or anarchists (and yes I know there’s some overlap with KosKids there, but I wouldn’t tar the entire bunch with that brush).

  34. Now, AL, I think you’re reconstructing reality to fit your narrative.

    1) Lamont has recently been outpolling Lieberman by 10 points in Connecticut. FYI, they don’t do the poll through the DailyKos website.

    2) Ipso facto, Lamont stands a good chance of beating Lieberman; whether you choose to recognize this or not is of no consequence to the voters of Connecticut.

    3) Finally, Lieberman has not ruled out that he will abandon the Democratic party and run as an independent if Lamont defeats him. This has to be the premier example of political selfishness and entitlement that I can think of. Entrenched interests like Lieberman are what’s wrong with Washinton. All you have to do is note which big Dem pols are campaigning for Joementum to see this.

    It reminds me of the establishment opposition that arose as a result of Howard Dean’s campaign.

    You are buying into (or knowingly supporting) the Corporatist Media narrative that Lamont represents “the netroots” when in fact he represents a deep discontent with Lieberman WITHIN HIS HOME STATE.

    If the scenario continues to play itself out as the narrative dictates, before too long you’ll be informing us about how “radical” or “out of the mainstream” his positions are…when in fact his position on Iraq in particular is much closer to public opinion than Lieberman’s.

  35. (different Andy)

    Marc, you have to look at the game theory here. Imagine someone not inclined to vote for a Democratic, and wants to see the Democrat party die (either to assure the dominance of the GOP, or in hopes of seeing a new party rise up from the ashes; you pick). Should they support Hank? Absolutely not. Hank is entirely too reasonable and well-spoken, yet he still holds anathemic viewpoints, as pointed out above. So support for him might extend the lifespan of the Democratic Party, where McKinney is instead putting their moonbattery front and center, and is ineffective, to boot.

    That said, what you’re trying is admirable, and I’ll give you credit for that. I have at least posted about your effort, and you’re probably getting more support for Hank than I’m getting in my “drive to nominate Ashton Kutcher for Secretary General”:http://http://www.cozikin.com/2006/07/ashton_kucher_for_secretary_ge.html; so at least note that you’re ahead of someone.

  36. First, and foremost that Lamont’s campign is to a large extent the creature of the netroots (he obvious has support in CT, but he had dialog with them before he declared, and they have been integral to his strategy). Next, and kind of instrumentally, Lamont doesn’t have a significant chance of winning.

    So you no longer believe the pollsters?

    Lamont’s stock is rising fast just as Lieberman’s is plummeting. And Lamont has very little name recognition in CT at this point.

    Should he manage to win the primary, and right now polling shows it as a tossup, his name recognition will greatly increase and Joe’s chances as an independant will fall through the floor.

    From January 2005 to July 2006 Lieberman’s disapproval ratings have increased by 133% among all registered voters (from 15% to 35%); by 193% among Democrats (from 15% to 44%); and by 157% among independents (from 14% to 36%). Among Republicans he is disapproved of by only 22% versus 18% in January 2005.

    In fact, the only demographic in which Joe’s support hasn’t plummeted yet is among CT Republicans, and I don’t see them re-registering to vote for him in August.

  37. Uh, Davebo, where will Lieberman be working in January? I’d say in the Rayburn building. Do you think differently?

    It’s relatively irrelevent what his approval rating is among Democrats; what matters is his approval rating among Connecticut voters, and that remains well over the magic 50% number.

    Andy – you’re looking at the ‘likely primary voters’ numbers; I’ve never suggested that Lamont won’t win August 8 (although I think it’ll be a close call either way), just that he’s damn unlikely to win in November. Want to show me some data that contradicts that?

    A.L.

  38. It’s relatively irrelevent what his approval rating is among Democrats; what matters is his approval rating among Connecticut voters, and that remains well over the magic 50% number.

    But will he still be over 50% after August? Considering he had approval ratings of 80% in 2000, down to 73% in Jan 2005, falling to 62% in Jan 2005 it’s safe to say that Joe’s popularity in CT has been in a freefall.

    But then according to the latest Quinnipiac poll he trails Lamont by 51% to 47%.

    If he loses the primary, and that’s a distinct possibility given the obvious trend, he’ll be toast trying to run as an independant.

    And in the end, the number that really worries Lieberman is 27%. Bush’s approval rating in CT.

  39. The really sad thing for me about the Democrat’s attack on Lieberman is that he is almost a perfect fit for what I think a viable Democrat Party ought to look like.

    Anti-imperialists (the real kind that like to take territory by war and oppression), pro-capitalist, strong on civil liberties.

    My mom, a life long Democrat now in her 80s, swoons whenever Joe is mentioned.

    A.L. gives Joe bad marks because he is not communist enough.

    Joe is a smart guy. He understands that social programs that bankrupt the country are not good policy. Unless your only concern is the next electon. South America is rife with that kind of thinking. Where has it gotten them?

  40. It may have been said, but I just wanted to drop my $.02 (nothing more, nothing less):

    AL, could you please stop pandering and begging and pleading and reminding for folks to send money? A few times is understandable, when you start bringing out the boiler plate “Does that support include your lunch money?” in so many of your comments on previous threads, I started to get annoyoed, but this post I think pushes it over the top.

    You are not running a campaign. You are not a professor with a group of fragile minded students. Your readers are intelligent, have their own agendas and ideals. Debate like you have been, throw around ideas like you have been, but please stop the incessant “have you donated?” chime.

    I know what it’s like to get wrapped up in something — believe me — and you’re going to annoy/offend some people regardless by supporting a campaign on a blog like this, but please don’t be, as you said, Kos.

    Cheers

  41. AL;

    OK, so you think Lamont could win the primary but lose the general against Lieberman, who will need to jump through political hoops to re-cast himself as an Independent? I seriously doubt it.

    If anything, he could help a Republican candidate by splitting the Independent (and taking some diehard Dem supporter) vote.

    Thus, he won’t be getting help from the Clintons or any other Democrat, for that matter.

    His predominant image will be that of a desperate politico running a vanity campaign….the Ralph Nader of Connecticut, playing spoiler to the party that allegedly represents his idealogy best but working against their best interest in the end (sound familiar to you? I think you could be Lieberman’s bastard child).

    The only sensibe thing for him to do would be to drop out of the race entirely and hope for a job in the Bush administration so he doesn’t have to leave the Washington corridors of power that he has become so enamored of…which in the end is a much more important goal for him than representing the people of Connecticut. That’s what my money is riding on.

    And at any rate, whether Hank Johnson or Ned Lamont win or not in the Fall, its not going to change the fact that we have much, much bigger problems to address in America and in the World, and we’re not going to get to solving them until We The People get their government back from the corporatist idiots who currently run every branch. I just don’t see you on board for this, unfortunately.

  42. The really sad thing for me about the Democrat’s attack on Lieberman is that he is almost a perfect fit for what I think a viable Democrat Party ought to look like.

    Which is exactly what has him in trouble with his constituency in CT.

    No one is attacking Lieberman. We haven’t seen and “Swift Jews for Truth” spring up. His seat is being contested plain and simple and Joe thinks that’s unfair. Why else would he schedule his daughters wedding two days before the primary? He assumed he wouldn’t have to actually campaign for the nomination.

  43. _From January 2005 to July 2006 Lieberman’s disapproval ratings have increased by 133% among all registered voters (from 15% to 35%); by 193% among Democrats (from 15% to 44%); and by 157% among independents (from 14% to 36%). Among Republicans he is disapproved of by only 22% versus 18% in January 2005._

    I don’t know what this purports to prove. In January, Lamont wasn’t running. But in Kossack land, they were already working with Lamont to use “the net-roots to dethrone Lieberman.”:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/6/16528/39352 Lots of January postings on Kos. Lamont entered the race in March. As of April “more than 90% of his donations were from the internet.”:http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20060425_ned_lamont_the_truthdig_interview/

    The January polls show the organic situation. The July polls show the public’s opinion of how well Lieberman is responding to a net-roots attack.

    Davebo, do you have any polls on the favorable/unfavorable rating of Connecticut voters on Lamont in January? Or how about name-recognition?

  44. “As of April more than 90% of his donations were from the internet.”

    So what? 80% of Lieberman’s come from “out of state.”:http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/geog.asp?CID=N00000616&cycle=2006

    And Lamont certainly does not need blogger money to run against Lieberman; he’s a “very wealthy man.”:http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2006/05/post_211.html

    Never-the-less, he has challenged Lieberman to voluntary campaign spending caps (same article as above).

    AND, he has also promised to support Lieberman if he wins the primary.

    The reason I’m supporting Lieberman’s ouster is because it wlll benefit both the Dems and the Republic to get him out of Washington. He represents all the entrenched power-broker interests that have led us so far astray during the last 6 years.

  45. A.L., Thank you for your explanation (#36), its a fair explanation.

    I think you’re right that the omitted paragraph would have been distracting. I appear to be the only one specifically concerned about that issue. Consistency being the province of navel-gazers.

    Still mulling . . .

  46. Andy L,

    I am not particularly interested in the larger issue of Lamont versus Lieberman and who is an s.o.b. A.L. has essentially argued that the netroots situation in Johnson is different from Lieberman because the netroots weren’t there until after Johnson won a runoff. Lamont was being promoted by the netroots before he entered the race. Timing is everything on that issue and Davebo’s polling numbers don’t reflect that.

    And its not just money we’re talking about here. Lamont couldn’t with a state senate seat with his fortune. Candidates seek money to obtain favorable publicity. Before there was a contest, Lamont was getting favorable publicity on Kos and Lieberman was getting bashed. Lamont didn’t need to buy it.

  47. PD Shaw, I think you are vastly overestimating the effect of the so called “Net Roots” on Lieberman’s disaproval numbers.

    Keep in mind that probably 90% of CT voters don’t know the net roots from a tree root. And if you want to know what has been driving down his approval numbers just look over his Ralph Peteresque statements of late.

    Folks in CT don’t seem to be buying his repeated claims that things are going swell in Iraq. And the apparantly aren’t happy with his belief that mentioning the fact is bad for America.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>