"Jerome Armstrong"?

They just let anyone post on the front page now.

Jerome,

If the liberals fight - we will win.
It happened in world war II, it happened during the great depression, and it happened even during the clinton administration as so many of us streamed out onto the net + rebuilt americas economy.

If the liberals fight, American wins.

Read an analysis that discusses the political strategy ramifications of the Lamont win and how the Democratic position on Iraq will be a key to success in November...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

OT:

Is there any way to determine the total amounts both candidates spent on the primary?

Lieberman always says Lamont outspent him (implying he "bought" his victory).  How would one go about compiling the spending reports to determine if Joe's characterization is accurate or not?

Sorry for being off topic but the posters here are, in my opinion, the most likely source for a definitive answer to this question.

Thanks

Aaron Adams

...he successfully ... framed that change within a broader set of values instead of a laundry list of issues...

Do you have any good examples of this, anything that can easily be repeated by the rest of the party?  Or was this more a matter of tone and attitude?

Jerome,

I haven't read your book, so you can tell me to RTFB if this is something you've covered.  But all the issue groups are non-profits, generally 501c3 with a 501c4 and 527 attached.  If they went from doing issue advocacy to partisan activity, they would kill their exempt status.  

Do you know of any legal strategy or theory that would keep the exempt money flowing while allowing a transition to more hardball partisan politics?

the Sierra Club and the many single-issue groups like them, NARAL, League of Conservation Voters, Planned Parenthood, AFL-CIO, SEIU, CWA, NALC, NAGE, Food and Commercial Workers, Teamster's, Firefighters, Carpenters, Postal Workers, IBEW, Human Rights Campaign, etc., found themselves aligned in the minority alongside Joe Lieberman on Tuesday night.

In the name of good government and good policy, all corporate and special interest monetary relationships should be done away with, or shunned (If they want to exercise their  Constitutional right to talk to an officeholder later, that's fine, but don't let be based upon a relationship of indebtedness.)

But nowadays, they should be shunned for political reasons as well since most people seem to no longer trust special interests of any kind nor support their endorsements.

MyDD did a good job on CA-50, analyzing the message and what worked.
What worked in this race?  Reading all the live blogging, I was impressed by the ground game, the thoroughness of the Election Day support, the co-ordination between traditional grassroots building and electronic sophistication.

As someone in the middle of a tough Statehouse fight to retain control here in Colorado, I would love a solid after-action analysis by those on the ground in Connecticut from the national and local bloggers.  How can we replicate the strength of this campaign to build the November tidal wave for Dems around the country?

Democrats are actually fairly united on the Iraq War in their opposition to it -- which is actually where most Americans are right now. And though many Senators are not as full-throated in their opposition as the base of the party, you don't see any successful challenges being made against other Senators who aren't ready to bring the troops home.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/ 0,8599,1224552,00.html?cnn=yes

he successfully (unlike what the Democratic Committees have done) framed that change within a broader set of values instead of a laundry list of issues.

Exactly. I was just talking to a friend about this this morning ... it's not the laundry list of issues that's important, it's the values that inform the ends which we seek.

Although I'd argue that it was as much a rejection of a set of values (Lieberman's and the GOP's) as it was a positive endorsement of values. No real harm in that, but what I read the message as is: "Senator Lieberman, you have sold out our values for too long. It's time to assert some Democratic values."

Now, it's up to us to extend that message into a more cohesive narrative of values. Lamont began it, I think, or at least took it up from Dean and others, but now the party needs to extend it and make it as clear as the "family values, strong military, and small government" mantra that the GOP rode to power. After all, the Christian Right really only stands for the first, but they work for all three (if you take "small government" to mean "low taxes" which is what the GOP strategically has made it mean). The Democrats need Labor, for example, to think the same way. And the Democrats need to give Labor a reason to think that way. It's a two-way street.

you don't see any successful challenges being made against other Senators who aren't ready to bring the troops home.

I think that's because until recently few thought they could be challenged. But what happened last night is a wakeup call for everyone.

It's too late to mount challenges against bad Democrats now (although Tasini is trying to hold Hillary accountable). But in 2008 it would be great to have something like Dean's 50 state plan in place to challenge in their primaries each and every "Democrat" who governs with Republicans and against The People.

Sounds like an interesting discussion in NH yesterday.  Single issue interest groups had their zenith of power in 1987 when they defeated Robert Bork.  It appears to have been downhill ever since.

In many ways, the world has passed them by.  A new progressive movement seems to be coming together and it is much less parachoial, broader based and more cohesive.  When was the last time a progressive single issue interest group impacted a major election?  Maybe 1992 and the year of the woman?  It is time for the Dem Party to move away from these groups and move on to the next paradigm.  I hope this is the next step of Howard Dean's now that the 50 state strategy has been implement.

A rag tag group of people, firing at the column moving in a straight line.  Or, a polished group of slick people wearing their red color with pride?

Look at how the GOP is trying to tell the redstates what to think. That is the second part of this victory: to see how desperate the GOP is to try to control what is thought about, and said, and done.

A bona fide chance to take America back.
That is what is at stake.  And it will not be over until people like Joe Lieberman, turn towards the light.  Lets sum it up.

I teach my children that America isn't going to hurt people, tie them up to car batteries, or shoot them. I don't use so many words, of course.

I teach them that yesterday was about winning, plain and simple. They are seeing from a very early age the positive results of voting.

There is a great stability to democracy, and the principles of liberty and freedom that our founding fathers enshrouded into our land. We are a safe haven for justice, liberty and things that don't go bump in the night.

Whether it was lieberman supporting telco bills, underhanded deals by texas oil people, or wars of aggression and violence - to make yourself believe you are being attacked by people from Iraq, takes too much energy and finally the GOP machine that was so carefully built

Is falling completely apart like a burning man in the desert.

I love the smell of napalm in the morning..

Jerome, if you're on the ground in CT, I have a housekeeping question:

Are Dems in CT talking with their legislators about revising election law to prevent future sore loser candidacies like Joe's present one? (Is the legislature still in session?)

Seems like a no-brainer, and an easy way for them to show that they believe that the state's nominating process is not a toy for narcissists.  

One would hope they're appalled at what they're about to be subjected to, and would like to make sure it doesn't happen again...

I had a conversation with a senior Sierra person in SF post Chafee, and his contention was that "our endorsements have to mean something" - they have to have a legitimate mechanism for rewarding those who vote well.  This is a legitimate point.

But I think single issue organizations can coexist with a new brand of partisan multi-issue coalition/organization.  

I certainly agree that rigorous but measured partisanship, emodied by candidates like Ned Lamont, is the necessary short term direction.   Someday bipartisanship of days of yore may return; but that day is nowhere in sight.  

this ny daily news story was linked on Kos a few days ago

http://blogs.nydailynews.com/dailypoliti cs/archives/2006/08/nedmentum.php

"Ned-Mentum
I'm told that the powerful SEIU Local 1199, which likes to be with a winner, is backing Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman.

It's a break in labor's ranks, a sign both of Lamont's momentum and of the intra-party scrap to come."

One of the sweetest things I've seen today was a quite subdued Joe Trippi on Countdown harking back to how it all started with Dean. Many references to Dean today, god bless him. Anyway. . . Trippi said quietly, 'it's three years later and they're not laughing now'.

And speaking of subdued, Carville was some early morning picture himself on CNN in the AM. He's seen it - the zeitgeist that is sweeping from coast to coast today.  One of the best days I can remember since that brand name in a suit stole the election six years ago. I wept and wept as testimony was given about disenfranchisement and chads were counted - or not.
'By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes' and it did come - worse even than I feared.
 I'm just so very happy that I've lived long enough to start to see the up side of 'what goes around, comes around' begin for Rove and Bush and all their enablers - like Lieberman.

especially with this phrase:

The message that voting for Ned Lamont meant a different direction got through, and he successfully (unlike what the Democratic Committees have done) framed that change within a broader set of values instead of a laundry list of issues.

And yes, there is much to be done to turn the committees around...just another fight in bringing progress.

Jerome, you can't honestly say that it is better for the Sierra Club to abandon trying to influence both parties and to throw in totally with the Democrats, can you?

This gives the Democrats license to abandon the environment at will, just as 30+ House Democrats did last fall in backing the Pombo bill which would have gutted the Endangered Species Act.  

This gives license to Ben Nelson to abandon his party on every significant environmental vote because, gosh, he's from Nebraska, and we can't possibly expect people from Nebraska to vote for someone who might support the environment.  

(And if you don't think people make that kind of argument on this site, check out the responses to my previous comments).

Your argument on single-issue groups and bipartisanship would make a lot more sense if we could count on the Democratic caucuses to do the right thing consistently on issues like the environment.  But purging Lieberman is just a start, and until we rid ourselves of the Bush-loving hypocrites like Ben Nelson, we have to accept that sometimes the Republicans will outflank us on some of our signature issues.  

BTW, the reason the Pombo amendment didn't become law is because Chafee killed it in committee.  This doesn't excuse the Sierra Club's endorsement of him (I would vote for Whitehouse if I lived in Rhode Island), but it does explain it a little better.

To make some clarifications:

1: Neither Sierra Club nationally, nor the CT Chapter has yet made any endorsement in the CT Senate race either for the primary or general.

2: Sierra Club is a 501 c4 with an affiliated 527 and PAC.  Sierra Club used to be a straight c3 tax-exempt organization but was stripped of that status in the late sixties.

Dave Willett, Sierra Club Press Secretary