How Will Lieberman's Defeat Affect CO Gov?

5 thoughts on “How Will Lieberman’s Defeat Affect CO Gov?”

1. Lamont’s victory over Lieberman in CT isn’t going to so much have an influence as it is a gauge to understand discontent with Bush’s policies.  We’ve got some pretty forthright Democratic candidates running for Republican Congressional seats this year; I don’t see Fawcett, Winter, Paccione, or Perlmutter saying “I support the President 110%” – it’s just not going to happen.  So the question is, does Colorado follow the CT model of voter; I think the answer is, at least partially “yes”, in as much as Colorado is not approving of Bush’s choices.

   As to the John Dean book, I don’t see most of the “conservatives” in this state caring that a Goldwater Republican is calling them out.  ColoradoPols posters have been pretty vocal over the past couple of days saying just how much moderate and even traditional conservatives are fed up over the direction the GOP is taking.  The book changes nothing; the sentiment is already strong enough that people will be acting on it.

   Log in to Reply

2. While I do not think that CT will affect our races, I think that Lamont and many CO Dem candidates/office holders have similar qualities, especially in the way that they are straight foreword and plain spoken.  I am thinking of the Salazar brothers, Ritter, Buescher, Winter… 

   I think that americans in general are tired of the east coast liberal style (DLC) slippery-talk and triangulation, not to mention their proud sense of elite smugness.  A Lieberman without the smug self-importance (essentially Sen. Salazar) would be fine in this purple state.  IMO Joe just got to cumfortable with special interests, Bush, and Fox News and thus ceased to effectively represent his very blue state people, and they gave him the boot. 

   Log in to Reply

3. Sen. L is a very liberal Dem who is managing to impress Real Republicans (RRs) as a traditional Dem who can work with the other party and who supports the president in times of war.

   This means a lot to patriots and infuriates moveon.org.

   I posted this on my board yesterday during a similar discussion:

   From Mike Barone at http://www.opinionjo… .

   Impact graphs:

   Ned Lamont carried most of the cities and towns that were carried by Richard Nixon. In Stamford, where Joe Lieberman grew up the son of a liquor-store owner, and where there are still sizeable blue-collar and black communities, Mr. Lieberman won with 55% of the vote. In next-door Greenwich, where Ned Lamont (like former President George H.W. Bush) grew up as the scion of an investment banker family, and where the housing values are now among the highest in the nation, Mr. Lamont won with 68% of the vote. If Mr. Lamont wins in November, he will be just one of several members of a Democratic caucus who have made, inherited or married big money.

   The working class Democrats of the mid-20th century voted their interests, and knew that one of their interests was protecting the nation in which they were proud to live. The professional class Democrats of today vote their ideology and, living a life in which they are insulated from adversity, feel free to imagine that America cannot be threatened by implacable enemies. They can vote to validate their lifestyle choices and their transnational attitudes.

   In the mid-20th century the core constituencies of both the Democratic and the Republican Parties stood foursquare for America’s prosecution of World War II and the Cold War. Today, as the Connecticut results suggest, it’s different. The core constituency of the Republican Party stands foursquare for America’s prosecution of the global struggle against Islamofascist terrorism–and solidly on the side of Israel in its struggle against the same forces. The core constituency of the Democratic Party wants to stand aside from the global struggle–and, as the presence of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton at Mr. Lamont’s side on election night suggests, is not necessarily on the side of Israel. It’s not your father’s Democratic Party.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Lieberman? No…. Dennis Kucinich is “very liberal.” What’s your basis for attaching this label to Lieberman?

      (I’m not going to argue against the rest of the post, other than to comment that it sounds like it was written by Republicans who are trying to employ a divide-and-conquer strategy.)

      Log in to Reply

   2. Lieberman’s voting record says “liberal”, and in fact he’s been very good for environmental and other traditionally liberal (Republican or Democrat doesn’t matter, but liberal) policies.

      But his rhetoric is pure neo-con, neo-McCarthy.  His attacks on Ned Lamont have been ridiculous in their hyperbole.  And if I had to guess, his Democrat-bashing appearances on news shows had as much to do with his defeat as did his unapologetic pro “Stay the course!” stand on the war.

      Working across the aisle would mean something if it didn’t have to mean crossing the aisle and agreeing 100% with the other side.  The current Republican leadership is completely unwilling to compromise though, so Democrats who would normally be willing to work with their Republican counterparts aren’t left with much of anything to hold onto; as much as this is a raw power-grab, it is also a political tactic designed to make the minority party look more extreme.  It’s a false choice.

      Log in to Reply