BT: Jackson Baker Thinks You Could Be Right

[Brassmask]

The honorable Mr. Baker gives some weight to the idea that liberals may have been so discontent as to have affected Ford's race. Is it possible? The implications are daunting.

This is THE political reporter for Memphis. 

Right up to the end, Ford was routinely being described by those pundits who were hazarding election forecasts as having run this year's best campaign. But that surely was a paradox: In the year of a roaring Democratic tide, with personal gifts that were undeniable and with coverage of his race with Corker devoted disproportionately to him, how indeed could Ford have lost?

One clue, perhaps, was the debate that raged amongst progressive bloggers in Memphis. It narrowed down to the following choices: Hold your nose and vote for Ford, whose politics had gone conspicuously rightward; vote for a fringe candidate of the left, such as the Green Party's Chris Lugo; desist from voting in the Senate race altogether; or, as a fourth alternative that came to be increasingly taken seriously, vote for Corker.

http://memphisflyer.com/memphis/Content?oid=oid%3A21632

[Michael Tee]

Could be a powerful tool at the nomination stage for progressive Democrats - - put up a candidate we can support or we'll torpedo her/him on Election Day. 

[BT]

Could be a powerful tool at the nomination stage for progressive Democrats - - put up a candidate we can support or we'll torpedo her/him on Election Day. 

That would be called the Lamont strategy, no?

[Michael Tee]

The Lamont strategy . . . ?

It should have worked.  Maybe the wild card there was Lieberman soldiering on as an independent.  That wouldn't happen in a lot of races, would it?  Lieberman had  his own money supply network, I think.  Something about that race doesn't seem easily reproducible, whether it's Lieberman's strong local base, his easy access to funds independent of the Democrats . . . or maybe just that Lamont was not the right guy.

I'm still trying to figure that one out.  It pissed me off enormously.

[yellow_crane]

Lieberman gets big campaign bucks from the pharmeceuticals, which is probably part of the warm connection with the Bush family, who have largely been one of the Pharms best friends in DC.

It will be interesting to see how Lieberman factors into this newly mentioned move to force the pharms to negotiate pill prices for the poor and elderly.

Seems no matter what the issue, Joe lands not right but far right.

It was Joe, you might remember, who spent his every available camera moment during the debate to capsize Dean.  He could not win, and he knew it, so he just attacked the single democrat who ever mentioned corporate corruption.


Pelosi has the political expertise to hold them all as a unit, but Lieberman will surface to lead a less progressive side.   It will be interesting to see whose head pops up when Lieberman's does. 

 

[Plane]

"Seems no matter what the issue, Joe lands not right but far right."



I wouldn't think so , does his voteing record seem liberal or conservative?

How was he suitable in the 2000 race and unsuitable now?

[sirs]

The Lamont strategy . . . ?  It should have worked.  I'm still trying to figure that one out.  It pissed me off enormously.

How about the idea that running on a pure anti-war Anti-Bush platform just doesn't fly with the electorate

[Xavier_Onassis]

How was he suitable in the 2000 race and unsuitable now?
============================================
He was chosen in 2000 because he criticized Clinton (because Gore wanted to distance himself from the Monica scandal provoked by the asshole ratwingers) and because he was Jewish and the Gore campaign needed money. in addition to votes Jews have LOTS of money, and gave a ton of it to the campaign.

Clinton's "morality" is no longer an issue.

The Jewish card has been played and is now played out.

Note how neither of these had a damned thing to do with Leiberman's voting record.

As for the Republicans, I hardly think that their changing his name to "Loserman" will have made Leiberman love them.

[larry]

State officials said turnout appeared unusually high for a race that Lamont had framed as a referendum on President Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq - and Lieberman's refusal to back the withdrawal of U.S. troops. With 655 of 778 precincts reporting, Lieberman beat Lamont, 50 percent to 39 percent. Republican Alan Schlesinger had 10 percent.

Republican: Alan Schlesinger got 10% of the vote. It appears a lot of Republicans voted for someone other than a Republican. Really folks, its not that hard to figure out.

[Amianthus]

Republican: Alan Schlesinger got 10% of the vote. It appears a lot of Republicans voted for someone other than a Republican. Really folks, its not that hard to figure out.

There aren't a whole lot of Republicans in that state?

[Amianthus]

There aren't a whole lot of Republicans in that state?

Yeah, looked up the exit polls from Connecticut. 26% of the voters are registered Republican.

[sirs]

There aren't a whole lot of Republicans in that state?

Yeah, looked up the exit polls from Connecticut. 26% of the voters are registered Republican.

So you have a state, chalk full of Dems (North Eastern Dems for that measure), and it was that group of voters who told the pure anti-war candidate & Democrat primary winner, to go pound sand.  Larry was right when he said, it's not that hard to figure out

[Amianthus]

So you have a state, chalk full of Dems (North Eastern Dems for that measure), and it was that group of voters who told the pure anti-war candidate & Democrat primary winner, to go pound sand.  Larry was right when he said, it's not that hard to figure out

Well, actually, only 38% are registered Democrat. The rest are independants. I'm not sure about Connecticut, but most north eastern states don't allow independants to vote in Democrat primaries - they are not allowed to vote in primaries, or in some states, they can vote in Republican primaries.

So, there was a significant voice in that state that didn't get heard in the Democrat primary.

[larry]

Sirs, Source, I hope you have statistics to back up your claim. The fact is when a Republican get only 10% of the votes in any state, that raises a red flag. In any other election year the Republicans would be in court demanding a recount and an investigation. Take my word for it, Sirs, Republicans elected their man, by what ever means became necessary.

[BT]

Take my word for it, Sirs, Republicans elected their man, by what ever means became necessary.

The Repubs went with the devil they knew. I guess the thinking was that in a two way race between Lieberman and Lamont, Lieberman was closer to their thinking than Lamont. Sounds like they were being pragmatic and wanted their vote to count.