What the Lamont race tells us about the Kool Kids Netroots

[beachmom]

It is obvious by now that Markos, et al have abandoned Ned Lamont. John Kerry, OTOH, has shown his usual integrity of keeping his promise and standing with Ned, when it seems he's become increasingly isolated. I've decided this is another "Alito" moment, and I hope the real activists have a "long memory" about this.

Here is a sincere diary from someone who really cares about Lamont:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/27/143411/65#c29

I put in my comment "Where is the netroots leadership?", shamelessly stealing from 1971 Kerry. They are acting like they had nothing to do with the primary challenge when they had EVERYTHING to do with it. I may add that Markos largely abandoned Webb saying he wasn't a "good campaigner", but if Webb wins, he'll try to take credit for it.

Here is an excellent post at The Premise about this:

http://thepremise.com/archives/10/26/2006/490

Netroots Leadership Hypocrisy Watch: Day 2.

Matt Stoller over at MyDD just put up a post about Joe Lieberman, and why Mr. Lieberman is a “broken man.” The post contains not a single mention of John Kerry stumping for Ned Lamont yesterday, but that’s not surprising. What’s a little surprising is that the post doesn’t contain a single mention of Ned Lamont. Is Mr. Stoller swinging into action today to help Mr. Lamont in any way he can? Well, no. He’s actually going to a Joe Lieberman event because he’s “fascinated” by Mr. Lieberman.

Over at DailyKos, Markos Moulitsas is doing no better. Any mention of Senator Kerry stumping for Ned Lamont? No. Any mention of Ned Lamont? No.

snip

So what’s the moral of the story here? The moral of the story is that the leadership of the netroots has decided that Ned Lamont isn’t going to win, so they quit on him. John Kerry’s still fighting, Mr. Lamont’s supporters are still fighting, but the leadership of the netroots has moved on to key issues like attending a Joe Lieberman fundraiser, bashing Harold Ford, Jr., and soliciting the netroots for gag lines.

These are the bright lights of integrity and passionate commitment that are leading the netroots. These are the visionary leaders of a new age in politics. And these are the same people who never stop complaining that the Democratic Party is out of touch.

It's obvious that Markos is not going to be a real factor in the 2008 presidential primaries. Why? Because he is loyal to no one. I have a feeling we could find posts of him abandoning Howard Dean, too, back in 2004. And had Mark Warner run, it would have been the same story -- Markos would have trumpeted him, until Mark stumbled; then he would have been abandoned just like all the others. For Warner's own sake, I am relieved he decided against running. The fact that Markos is "underwhelmed" by the 2008 prospects is good news for all of those contenders, since he truly is the kiss of death. Dare I say Rasputin?

[blm]

1. Markos still has the ethos of a Repub. He just wants to "be" without doing

the serious real work it takes to stand on principle and FIGHT for any length of time.

[Democrafty]

2. This is why I have a hard time thinking of Kos as "netroots."

He's so tactical, and who in the netroots has much opportunity to be tactical? The netroots, to me, will always be about issues, and following them instead of candidates and personalities.

[whometense]

3. That is one amazing blog.

And one really smart guy.

http://thepremise.com/archives/10/27/2006/498

Jerome Armstrong is right: if Democrats don’t have power then nothing else matters. And allowing ideological attack dogs like Mr. Sirota to wage ideological battles within the party on the eve of an election would be self-defeating. But of course that’s really the business that Ralph Nader, David Sirota and others like Markos Moulitsas have always been in: fracturing the Democratic Party from the inside so they come first.

And that’s a critical point. Notice how agonized Mr. Sirota is about accepting the simplest of all political premises: if you don’t have political power you can’t change anything. It kills him to have to confront that simple truth, but to Mr. Sirota and people like him it’s not really clear that winning is more important than ideological purity. Despite the fact that we have a more fundamentalist Supreme Court and a war in Iraq that prove that it is.

I abstained from the 1994 election because the Democratic Party had lost its way. But I don’t need lessons in ideological purity to tell me that corruption is not to be tolerated. By the same token, focusing on winning doesn’t mean giving up on our collective ethics or morals or the greater good of the citizens of this country. But that’s the way progressives like David Sirota and members of the Utopian Left feel inside. It’s like they have political OCD and can’t stop washing their hands of party politics fifty times a day, because they’re sure it’s contaminating their precious bodily fluids.

From where I sit it’s unfortunate that they feel that way. It’s also important that the rest of us remember that they’re the ones with that problem.

[ProSense]

5. That's perfect! Thanks!

That's the very thing I was explaining to a family member who was railing against a Democrat. First things first: a majority Democratic Congress.

[blm]

4. Kos is finally saying something about Dems NOT showing for Lamont

on his front page - but just a repost from another blog. And Kos STILL hasn't talked about the Dems who HAVE been working for Lamont.

[whometense]

6. I've also noticed that

the folks at firedoglake have pretty much dropped him, too. There's the odd anti-Lieberman post, but I don't see anything about how great Lamont is.

I think that sucks, and it really pisses me off.

[MH1]

7. That post is from firedoglake

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/10/27/math-tutors-needed/

Too bad it doesn't mention who has campaigned and raised money for Lamont, but when people at dailykos start talking about having "long memories", let's see if it includes this little list.

[Mass]

9. The only thing the netroots are really to blame on this one has been to bring him

in the race early on. They needed a much better candidate to beat Lieberman.

I would not reproach them to focus on races that can be won. As much as I would like to believe it is winnable, I do not see how at this point:

My biggest regret here is that the DSCC have not supported Lamont more actively. They have offered Lieberman his best argument: keeping his seniority. Lieberman has been campaigning heavily on this fact and emphasizing what he could bring to the state that Lamont as a newbie could not. The impact is really important.

[beachmom]

13. Really? I thought he was pretty good, and that's why he won

the primary in the first place. Regardless, THEY were the ones who forced this. So I DO blame them for not sticking with him until the very end. It's shameful, quite frankly. John Kerry could have done the same thing (abandoned Lamont), but he didn't, because he's somebody you can count on. I mean -- there was some risk going with Webb in the primary here in Virginia since he didn't have campaigning experience, but no matter the outcome, I would have stuck with him until Election Day. But Markos and the lot of 'em are fickle, and have zero integrity, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe Lamont wouldn't have bothered had he not been so encouraged. I just get mad over and over thinking about it.

[Mass]

16. He won the primary because ONLY Democrats vote in CT and

even then, he did not vote that many votes.

I certainly blame them to have pushed him in this race and not sticking with him. However, I am a lot more bothered by them attacking Ford now, as he has a chance to win and Lamont does not.

[ProSense]

8. Slightly OT: Here is Biden's position on the CT race.

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17389189&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6

[Mass]

11. That is pure BS. No surprise coming from Biden, but still.

[whometense]

12. I'm shocked.

What a weasel.

[karynnj]

14. In some ways, his position is fair

We all remember the McCain 1996 quote to Republicans that he would never campaign against John Kerry. That was based on their personal relationship and McCain's respect (bck before he lost his soul).

Weld was extremely liberal for a Republican but he would have been another Republican vote in a narrowly (I think) divided Senate. This was also a time when Senators typically didn't campaign against their peers - even on the other side.

Likewise, Biden is more anti-war than Lieberman (Bush may be too :) ), but I think on many issues Biden may be closer to Lieberman than Lamont. He may also feel that as Lieberman is likely to win - he doesn't want to destroy family friendships.

The saving grace is that I doubt Biden is a huge asset.

[MH1]

10. There's a GD post about FDL's "Math Tutors needed"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2499980&mesg_id=2499980

It would be nice if more folks got to see this - a little list of who hasn't showed up to back the CT Democratic Party's choice.

[rox63]

15. I posted a comment on FDL

about Kerry's support for Lamont, as well as a link to video (from JK's site) from the Kerry/Lamont event earlier this week.