MyDD :: My Left Nutmeg is afraid to discuss the truth about Lamont

My Left Nutmeg is afraid to discuss the truth about Lamont

by CTDEMOCRAT2, Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 09:33:44 PM EST

The Lamont loss has made MLN very afraid of reasoned debate. Branford Boy and the crew @ MLN have prevented those who disagree with them from joining the debate over at the blog. I came over to MY DD to tell the story.

Here are some reasons for the loss:

1. Tom, David, Tim and so many others took advantage of the rich guy and urged him to spend tons of money on tv ads that lacked any connection with what he had to do to win. At 8pm on 11/7 Ned spent another $850k of his money on god knows what. They took him to the cleaners!

2. Lamont did'nt want it: http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/local/ scn-gt-a1lamont11.10nov10,0,7921924.stor y

["Those guys down in Washington, they had to be a little more tactful about it, and I understand that," Lamont said. "I was challenging a little bit of them, too."

On his future plans, Lamont said he wanted to continue his civic involvement. He mentioned his volunteer work as a teacher at Bridgeport's Harding High School and previous service with the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C., think tank. He said "time will tell" whether he might start his own foundation or political action committee.

Lamont said he will miss driving around the state and meeting people. Other things he could do without.

"A lot of the politics was sort of silly," Lamont said, adding that he was looking forward to spending time with his family and helping his three children with their homework. "Unlike a lot of politicians, I've got a life."]

Lamont is expected to leave soon for a vacation in Barbados.

"I'm just looking forward to taking a long nap," he said.

3. Being against something doesn't mean you are for something.

Exit polls showed many Lamont voters didn't care what he stood for they just wanted anyone but Joe.

Lamont lost by 10 points MLN and others need to face the facts. This may have been doomed for failure from the start.

Tags: My Left Nutmeg, Lamont (all tags)

Permalink :: 5 Comments :: Post a Comment

OK, who are you. Give us the context of your views (none / 0)

Tom, David, Tim and so many others took advantage of the rich guy and urged him to spend tons of money on tv ads that lacked any connection ..to..win

I assume you mean Tom Swan and Tim Tagaris. And who is David?

So how much money did these guys make off of Lamont?

Did they make any commission off of the ads?
If not, how do you make the assumption they took advantage of a rich guy.

Even if I take you at your word that the tv ads lacked any connection to what was required to win, what makes you think that smacks of Lamont being exploited rather than being just well intentioned but badly thought out ads.

Lamont did'nt want it:

Let's see. The guy have up 16M of his own money. One of his main selling points was that he was right on a war that was in synch with national and local sentiment, and normally, that sentiment was good enough to win an election as long as the campaign was competent(Witness Chaffee's loss in a state where Chaffee had less negatives than Lieberman). He saw that his primary win which was a major accomplshment was not enough to unseat Lieberman. So excuse him if he feels deflated and wants to move on, at least for now.

Being against something doesn't mean you are for something.

Actually, yes it does. Saying you are not stupid enough to get one into a war means you are not stupid enough to get the country into similar useless wars in the future(as Lieberman has shown no ability to learn from his mistakes). But even if I grant you that point, maybe Lamont's people should be blamed for not realizing how thickheaded some CT folk were. If you read an article in some Rhode Island paper(providence journal?) by the guy from Harpers Bazaar(www.projo.com), you will see many people who wanted to support lieberman just shut themselves off of listening to anything about Lamont. Now if yo uwant to make a case, the ads needed to be clearer, fine. But when you imply he didnt stand for something, you are betraying YOUR OWN ignorance of the candidates. Lamont did say what he stood for. MANY TIMES. He talked about health care, his volunteer work at schools and what he felt about education, trade agreements, unions, min wage, war, the opportunity cost of war that cost investment in local infrastructure.

Lamont probably needed another year or just one of the best campaigns in recent memory to reach this group of voters who disagreed strongly with the bigggest foreign policy blunder in recent history but let off one of the main guys responsible for this blunder.

by Pravin on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:25:52 PM EST

Re: My Left Nutmeg is afraid to discuss the truth (none / 0)

You complain that being against something doesn't mean that you're for something, but this is just a whiny hit piece in which you're against everything and for nothing.

You've inspired me to write a Sunday night diary just to bump this down a spot.

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:33:43 PM EST

Re: My Left Nutmeg is afraid to discuss the truth (none / 0)

Actually I think it is important to let people read this idiotic diary so that we do not have to debunk these tired talking points again and again.

It will be interesting to see if this new MYDD member bothers to take the time to respond to every single one of my point.

by Pravin on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:38:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So wwhat if people voted on hatred of Lieb (none / 0)

Exit polls showed many Lamont voters didn't care what he stood for they just wanted anyone but Joe.

First of all, just because someone was willing to vote for anyone other than Joe, it doesn't mean they felt Lamont didn't have anything to offer. All it means is that became their main motivation to vote. A valid motivation as any.

Second, if you are going to act so arrogant as if you know the whole story, you WOULD HAVE KNOWN that a lot of republicans who voted for Lieberman did so because they hated the concept of NEd Lamont. Lamont reminded them of how they continued to support a moronic president. If you looked at right wing blogs, you would see a lot of people praising Lieberman just for sticking with the prez on the war, but making fun of his ideas. They go on to say how important it is not to let "red Ned" get voted in even if it means losing a seat for sure.

And besides, your point is such bullshit. You do not unseat an 18 year incumbent without any major sex or corruption scandals without the support of major party bigwigs in the biggest primary turnout ever based on pure hatred alone. The hatred of lieberman led people to consider Lamont. But Lamont's charm led people to support him with such passion which led to a primary win which worried the establishment.

Republicans had to spend money and time on CT - TIME THAAT COULD AHVE BEEN BETTER SPENT HELPING GEORGE ALLEN FURTHER IN A RACE WHERE EVEN THE SLIGHTEST BIT OF HELP COULD HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME.

by Pravin on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:36:46 PM EST

Hit and Run Diary (none / 0)

So you put in a bunch of accusations, whine that you were muffled on MyLeftNutmeg, but you can't even respond to a single one of my many points here?

Dude, maybe it's the lack of your ability to take part in a real discussion that led to your ouster over there?

by Pravin on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 06:04:33 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.