August 08, 2006

8/8: Have The Bloggers Already Won?

No matter who wins Lieberman vs. Lamont, the self-described netroots have already accomplished much of their goals just by setting the tone of '06. Non-netroots fan Rep. Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL) looks like he is adopting an '06 theme the netroots can love and MSM titans like Paul Krugman are taking traditional interest groups like the Sierra Club head on for their support of GOPers (a key wish of DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas). Whether a netroots-based Dem party can succeed electorally is yet to be determined. But it can't do much worse then the Dem Party of the last 6 years.

The big names of the progressive blogosphere continue to pour into CT. Chris Bowers at MyDD finally made the trip up from Philadelphia, PA, and writes: "I feel as though this is the quiet before the start of the great battle at the end of a major blockbuster trilogy: as though we are about to storm the gates of Mordor or send a tiny fleet out toward the Death Star. In just two hours, I have met droves of volunteers, but I have also run into numerous bloggers who are prominently players in the national scene. ... In this environment, we are obviously the rag-tag group of rebels lined up against what seems to be a massive, hyper-efficient army that no one ever thought could be beat. Use the force and aim for the exhaust port. Do it for Frodo."

Native bloggers are already turning in reports on early voting. Connecticut Bob: "6:30 - I just woke up, then turned on the TV. Channel 8 in New Haven was in the middle of a report from a voting place. They said that at least six voters were turned away because they weren't on the voter lists. Apparently they were previously unaffiliated voters and their change to the Democratic party wasn't processed properly. My immediate impression is that this was a paperwork problem and not anything sinister, but I'll monitor the situation."

Also in CT for the primary, Tom Schaller at TAPPED loosely reports on a last minute interview with Lieberman spokesperson Marion Steinfels:

1. Did the latest poll [showing Lieberman down only 6 points, instead of the earlier 13-point deficit] give the Lieberman camp a lift?

I feel like there's been a bit of a shift, but I think it's coming down to people having to make a decision...4. How accurate is the New York Times story about your campaign decelerating its field operation?

I think that story was over-reported. We did make a strategic decision to allocate a little bit more money on TV; we upped our media buy. With that said, tomorrow, on the streets of Connecticut, there will be an unprecedented vote operation on the ground...

Many bloggers stressed the role GOTV would play, like BranfordBoy at My Left Nutmeg: "I haven't had a chance to check it, but I was told by the usual "reliable source" that the Secretary of State's office is reporting that 20,000 people have switched their registration to Democrat. How many are for Ned? That's the million dollar question. Don't underestimate those right-wing unafilliateds. Keep up your GOTV efforts, official and unofficial.

Others highlighted the resources at Lieberman's disposal. Bowers at MyDD: "Ok, so why is this race tightening? First of all, don't underestimate Connecticut machine. Machines are very powerful. Did I say very powerful? I meant very very powerful. sign that the machine is putting everything on the line is that they are sending the kitchen sink into Connecticut. It's not just Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Even wonder-politico Corey Booker is out of the closet as a Lieberman backer, stumping for him yesterday." Jane Hamsher at firedoglake: "Lieberman has turned out the machine and he's flooding the cities with cash - $150 per day for kids in Hartford (up from $60). All we've got to combat that with are passion and commitment. If you can volunteer to phone bank, you can do so through MoveOn here. If you can make it to Connecticut to turn out the vote, you can get more info here."

Finally, out of towner TRex of firedoglake sums up her impressions upon arrival: "I got interviewed by CT Bob tonight out in front of Sullivan's. (It seems to have become the de facto roosting point for all the crazy liberal bloggers in the area.) He asked me what the difference is between my perception of the campaign before I came here and how I think about it now. I told him it's like the difference between watching two people have sex in a movie and actually having sex. And really, it's about like that. In sex scenes in movies, everything is so choreographed and artful, no one ever falls off the bed, gets hair in their mouth, makes ridiculous noises, or gets a massive cramp in their foot from curling their toes. In fact, watching people have sex in a movie is really nothing like having sex at all. Similarly, watching TV anchors and pundits parse and pontificate about this primary race is absolutely nothing like being here at the white-hot center of the action."

The Political Wire has video of a Lieberman interview with Fox News where he announces his intention to go forward with an independent run if he loses 8/8.

Jason Zengerle at Lieberman sympathetic TNR: "Uh, it seems like the last thing Joe Lieberman should be doing the evening before the Democratic Primary is reminding Democrats that, should he lose the primary, he plans to go forward with his independent bid. He especially shouldn't be issuing that reminder via a reporter from Fox News, given the popular charge that Lieberman's a "Fox News Democrat."

The unofficial Lamont Blog noticed the report and wasn't happy: "Lieberman will be under unbelievable pressure to concede gracefully if he loses tomorrow night. From D.C. insiders, from state officials, from the media, from his colleagues in the Senate and the leadership of the House. All are already involved in distancing themselves from him. Branded a loser, he will gain no traction in the general, and cause huge headaches for local and national Democrats. Yet today, he told Fox News, of all outlets, he was committed to keeping the Joementum alive after tomorrow, no matter what."

Poll bloggers are unanimously downplaying the Lieberman bounce story line form Quinnipiac's 8/6 poll. Mystery Pollster writes: "While the latest survey shows Ned Lamont leading by closer margin than their last survey, the differences are small and evidence of a shift in momentum is sketchy at best. ... The difference between the two polls seems to be mostly among moderate to conservative Democrats." Political Arithmetik also sees moderates as the key: "Lieberman's losses among his core supporters, the moderates, are less extreme but politically devastating. From a 67-18 lead 4/30 he dropped to a thin 49-45 margin 7/31, and has recovered a bit in the 8/6 poll to 53-43." Mystery Pollster concludes: "Regardless of the reasons for the change, this latest Quinnipiac snapshot of the race is probably the more accurate read, especially given that the results are closer to those obtained by Research 2000 and (if we believe the rumor) the internal Lamont tracking polls as well."

The Hotline's On Call (go team!) noticed 8/7 afternoon that Lieberman's campaign website was down. Reached for comment, Lieberman spokesperson Marion Steinfels claimed: "There's a coordinated effort to overload our bandwidth and that has brought down our website and our e-mail."

The official Ned Lamont Blog called the accusation delusional: "I post because Marion Steinfels is running around proclaiming that someone hacked her site. This isn't the first time they haven't paid their bills, it happened when the stupid bear-cub ad ran and Sean Smith bragged all the traffic (from people mocking the ad) crashed their site. Same notice. But since the Hotline Blog ran with Marion's story (sort of), I had to post this here because they are undoubtedly peddling the story to other outlets as well. Passing on a different screen shot than the one above, from after they paid their hosting fees."

Matt Stoller of MyDD summed up the sentiment of most progressive bloggers: "Apparently the Lieberman campaign is claiming that the Lamont campaign hacked their web site. Here's a screenshot from earlier in the day. What a bunch of liars."

Josh Marshall at Talking Point Memo blegged his readers for expertise and got this response: " I own a web hosting company that uses the same software as the Lieberman site. That screenshot that the Lamont folks grabbed is a standard automated warning from a website control panel known as "Cpanel". Most large webhosts host many thousands of domains and their systems are automated. If a bill goes unpaid, or bandwidth is exceeded by a specified amount, the site gets auto-suspended and that Cpanel page replaces the index page. It's possible that the site was suspended for exceeding their bandwidth allotment as opposed to not paying their bills, but for someone like Joe Lieberman to not have his ducks in a row on the night before an election like this is quite telling." Marshall comments: "Other knowledgeable emailers suggest the same possibility -- not that Joe folks necessarily forgot to pay their bill but that they tripped some bandwidth or server load limit and hadn't made arrangements in advance to keep the site online if this happened."

The dawning of primary day led many on the left to reflect on why they made such an effort to single out Lieberman this primary season. Reasons include:

• Maura at My Left Nutmeg reacting to Lieberman's 8/8 description of Lamont supporters as "the antisecurity wing" of the Dems: "Now we're the ANTISECURITY WING?!?!? ANTI-SECURITY?!?! You know what? Go to hell, Joe. Antisecurity wing. You're worse than the Zell Miller of Connecticut. You deserve to lose big today, and I'm going to do EVERYTHING I possibly can to make that a reality."
• Charles P. Pierce at TAPPED reacting to a 8/8 Lieberman quote on the GOP's defeat of Max Cleland: "If anybody in Connecticut needed a reason to vote against Weepin' Joe Lieberman -- whose bladder, as my old Irish granny used to put it, is far too close to his eyes -- that quote should just about do it. (And, before anyone mentions it, yes, I know Cleland has campaigned for him. Hell, Joe's made a career out of sponging off the loyalty of his betters, why stop now?)"
• Steve Anderson at The Huffington Post: "As it comes down to the wire in CT, Joe Lieberman and his mouthpiece Lanny Davis are chanting "90%" as in, Lieberman voted with the Democratic Leadership 90% of the time, so why isn't that good enough? Because that 10% you didn't get right, Joe, included some heavy issues. ... But here's the issue that starts and stops the discussion for me. This past Sunday Michael Schiavo said this: Not only did Joe Lieberman support the illegal political intervention in the private and legally protected decisions of my family, he went out of his way to defend it. On national television."
• Glen Greenwald: "The love which right-wing extremists have for Joe Lieberman isn't based on the fact that he's a "centrist." If Lieberman were a "centrist," extremists would not care about him. They would not be vigorously urging his re-election, or praising his potential appointment as Bush Defense Secretary, or touting him as a Vice-Presidential running mate for George Allen. They do that because he is one of them -- a neoconservative extremist who is with them on virtually every major issue of the day."
• Hullabaloo: "This is more than simple ideology, although there's plenty of that at work. I suspect that some of the support for Joe on the right comes from the shared neurotic sense of beseigement the conservatives have developed as their cultural identity."

Chris Bowers at MyDD predicts "the worst day of press for the progressive netroots in years" no matter what happens 8/8: "If Lamont loses, we will be branded as ineffectual, irrelevant, extremist, and destructive. If Ned Lamont wins, we will be branded as powerful, relevant, extremist, and destructive. Both descriptions are inaccurate and unfair because this goes so far beyond the blogosphere, but if I have to choose I would much rather have the second one be the story. If we are going to get trashed and be forced to take credit for the fantastic work of others, I would at least like to get trashed as powerful and relevant."

Populist Sirotablog meanwhile is a bit more optimistic and offers four possible out comes:

• 1. Lieberman wins by more than 10 points: Champagne purchases in Washington, D.C. skyrocket, as the professional Democratic Party apparatus (ie. consultants, Hill staffers, think tankers, etc.) collectively celebrates the perception that they still do not have to worry at all about small-d democracy threatening their cushy lifestyles.
• 2. Lieberman barely wins (less than 10 points): Again, champagne purchases in the Beltway are high, and Rothenberg, Roberts, Kagan, Beinart and the DLC crowd begin calling all of their reporter friends telling them in coded language that this means that ordinary voters still - thankfully - have no say in their own political process.
• 3. Lamont ekes out a win (less than 4 points): Xanax and Prosac fly off the shelves of DC pharmacies, as the Democratic Party Establishment goes into a depression because it realizes it no longer gets to give orders from Mt. Olympus. ... Lieberman, who for weeks has been trying to downplay expectations, cites the closeness of the results as a reason to go ahead with an Independent Lieberman for Lieberman bid ... The divide in the Democratic Party has a chance to be bridged, but the insistence by some Democratic incumbents and moneyed interests to keep pushing Lieberman's candidacy unfortunately preserves the fault line.
• 4. Lamont wins big (by more than 5 points): ... Because Lamont is no firebrand and because he won by pushing positions at the real center of public opinion, more Democratic insiders realize their fight against ordinary citizens is a losing battle and realize their careers are about to be cut short lest they change their ways. Thanks to this change, the Democratic Party actually start winning national elections for the first time in a generation.

The right side of the blogosphere has significantly increased their coverage of CT SEN in the final days. A more thorough look will be posted later, but for now the emerging consensus is that 8/8's final result is largely irrelevant.

Dean Barnett answers questions at Townhall including: "5) Will Lieberman prevail in the general election? No. There's something un-American about demanding a rematch. ... 7) Does tomorrow's election mean the Nutroots officially own the Democratic Party? Whatever the result, they own it already. The only difference will be the media will take belated widespread notice of this fact if Lamont wins."

Byron York at National Review Online believes the netroots financial prowess has been overplayed: "Of course, if Lamont wins, it will be the Triumph of the Blogs. But looking at campaign finance reports this morning, it's hard to see that that would be the real meaning of a Lamont victory. ... but the rough numbers are these: Lamont has raised $4.1 million, $2.5 million of which came from himself and $298,000 of which came from bloggers. Now, $298,000 is not nothing. But is it the sort of fundraising power that will upend Democratic Party politics? And will a Lamont victory truly be the Triumph of the Blogs?

Video from CT includes: Fox News package on CT SEN from Politicstv, local tv coverage from CT Bob, Rev. Al Sharpton campaigning for Lamont from CT Bob, and Beyond the Headlines interview with Lieberman from My Left Nutmeg

Spazeboy has audio of a Lieberman robocall while Rachel Weiner at TPM Cafe tallies up CT paper endorsements for Lieberman and Lamont (8-3 Lieberman):

Lieberman:
Hartford Courant
Litchfield County Times
Connecticut Post
New Haven Register
The Day
Norwich Bulletin
Danbury News Times
Greenwich Time
Lamont:
Journal-Inquirer
Lakeville Journal
Hartford Advocate

MI SEN: Primary Wasting Time To Fight Stabenow

Matt Lewis at Human Events Online tells us "In Michigan today, two Republicans will face off for the chance to take on unpopular incumbent U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow [D]. While the two Republican challengers (Keith Butler and Michael Bouchard) have been campaigning against each other, U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow has been able to save her resources (she reportedly has been 'husbanding' about $7 million). But the truth is that this election should not have happened. Conservative Keith Butler entered the race only after Sheriff Michael Bouchard decided not to run. (It was only after additional prodding and meddling by Liddy Dole and the NRSC that Bouchard was persuaded to the race.) Sure, some will argue that the winner of a primary always comes out a better candidate. While that may sometimes be true (McCain's challenge made Bush a better candidate in 2000), the rule does not apply in the case of Michigan. ... Today's race is predicted to be close, but frankly, it is a waste. Either Butler or Bouchard should have spent this valuable time raising money to defeat Stabenow's $7 million -- not each other. ... This is a prime example of what happens when Washington meddles."

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru reminds us that Rep. Joe Schwarz won the '04 GOP primary because "conservatives were divided among five other candidates. Tomorrow, he's facing just one conservative: former state rep. Tim Walberg. The winner is likely to win the general election, too. It's a safe Republican seat, which Bush carried 54 percent in 2004. The social issues have gotten a good deal of attention in the race: Walberg is a pro-life social conservative, Schwarz a pro-choice social liberal. (Schwarz has called Michigan's right-to-carry law 'nuts.') But there are major fiscal-policy differences as well. Schwarz has supported tax hikes, voted for sugar subsidies, demanded that Katrina rebuilders comply with Davis-Bacon union pay schedules, and opposed the Republican Study Committee's tight budget. He favored raising the payroll tax rather than personal accounts as a solution to Social Security's problems. Walberg, on the other hand, promises to be a budget-cutter in the mold of Texas's Jeb Hensarling. The League of Conservation Voters and the Service Employees International Union are working to re-elect Schwarz; the Club for Growth is behind Walberg."

RedState continues it's anti-Schwarz campaign reiterates it's "top ten reasons why Joe Schwarz Must Go":

"10.Schwarz Opposes ANWR drilling.
9. Schwarz Supports Government Subsidized Viagra.
8. Schwarz Is Wrong on Marriage -- he supports same sex marriage.
7. Schwarz Is Wrong on Private Property -- he supports the Kelo decision.
6. Schwarz Is A Tax & Spend Liberal.
5. Schwarz Is Pro-Choice -- he's being backed by Planned Parenthood and
other liberal pro-abortion groups.
4. Schwarz Is Anti-Free Speech -- he voted for BCRA and against
protecting blogs from the FEC.
3. Schwarz Is A Hypocrite -- having voting for BCRA, he violated it
to try to win this campaign.
2. Schwarz Is A Tax Hiker -- he's on record willing to repeal
the President's tax cuts.
1. It will send a message to Republican leaders in Congress"

CO: "That Boy's A Straight Shooter, With Upper Management Written All Over Him"

GOPer Clay Calhoun doesn't "live within the district, but if I did live within Colorado's 5th Congressional District, I would cast my vote on Tuesday for Jeff Crank [R] for Congress. Here's why: Today, we Americans -- each and every one us, no matter our economic, cultural, geographic, ethnic, or you-pick-whatever status -- are faced with common issues, problems, and opportunities. From my perspective, these fall into the key categories of national security, fiscal responsibility, and economic development. Each of these greatly impact the well being of Colorado and the nation. And on each of the many issues that fall into these categories, Jeff Crank is the only candidate in the CO-5 primary that is focused, able, and experienced at driving to and working for a solution at both the state and national levels."

Bubbagump29 at RedState says the GOP primary race is the "epitome of a tossup. The only public poll I've seen was one back in June from the [Colorado Springs mayor Lionel] Rivera camp putting obviously himself is first with [state Sen. Doug] Lamborn being his runner up, the heir-designate Crank and others close behind except for General Bentley Rayburn (who?) at 2%. Critics called it a push poll and it could well have been, but that's what we have. My gut feeling is that Lamborn buried Crank with the Right to Life endorsements. That, I think, probably sealed the deal for social conservatives and fiscal conservatives are excited about the Club for Growth endorsement. Lamborn now has much of the base. Another important one to watch will be District 7 for the Democratic primaries, where the winner faces another Club for Growth endorsee Rick O'Donnell to replace [ex-Rep.] Bob Beauprez [R], who is running for governor, and I keep reading that this seat is the most competitive in the nation."

A new poll of NH Dems showed a good deal of unfavorability toward Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and it has the lefty blogosphere abuzz with HRC. TAPPED's Ezra Klein serves up some of the characterizations of Clinton: "'Lying b****...shrew...Machiavellian...evil, power-mad witch...the ultimate self-serving politician.' So said the grassroots Democrats who were part of New Hampshire pollster Dick Bennet's focus groups. And this is New Hampshire, Hillary's strong primary state, not Iowa, where she's already trailing John Edwards in the polls. Now, that's not to say these haters represent the median opinion of Clinton. But if a significant portion of the Democratic electorate in New Hampshire is strongly motivated to turn out against her, her much vaunted strength in the state may be almost entirely illusory -- particularly if she loses in the preceding caucuses, as may very well happen."

Fellow lefty James Boyce at Huffington Post supports Clinton for who she is right now, a senator -- and who she isn't, a GOPer: "There's been a lot of chortling online about the articles today detailing the poll...where over 400 registered Democrats were shown to be, well, less than fond of the Senator from New York. I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton in terms of presidential politics, but I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton, Democratic Senator who has worked very hard for the people of New York and has helped Democrats across the country raise millions of dollars. ... And don't forget -- who wins when the Democrats bash one of their leaders? The Republicans. Keeping the Hillary The Hated narrative running helps them, not us. Support whoever you want. Disagree with Senator Clinton on everything she does. But when people start calling one of the leaders of your party a 'whore,' it's time to start asking questions about who's paying the bills."

Jim Geraghty at National Review Online has identified a second righty blogger with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) connections: "John Balbach, a Michigan political professional and an employee of a firm currently under contract to McCain's PAC Straight Talk America, wrote two posts on RedState.com touting the Arizona Senator and one criticizing the ethics of Rudy Giuliani, a likely rival of McCain's in the 2008 Republican presidential primary. However, Balbach is not currently working for McCain's PAC; he is working on other accounts for the firm, Strategic National Consulting. Balbach was previously employed by former U.S. Ambassador Ron Weiser, who is a veteran GOP fundraiser and currently finance chair of the Michigan Republican Party."

"Balbach's case has some distinctions from that of Patrick Hynes, a consultant who posted several pro-McCain and anti-Romney items to his blog, AnkleBitingPundits, without disclosing his financial ties to the Arizona Senator's PAC. One could argue that as a former employee of a figure who raised funds for McCain, and as an employee of a firm currently contracted to McCain, Balbach ought have disclosed that in his RedState posts. But as of now, there is no evidence of Straight Talk America money going directly to Balbach; in fact, the opposite is true $1,000 went from Balbach to Straight Talk America. And once again, he did introduce himself to his readers at RedState as "a long time supporter of Senator McCain."

Robert Bluey at Right Angle Blog congratualtes LG Michael Steele for "standing up to the liberal editors at the [Baltimore] Sun" by not letting them "distort where he stands on the issues" and posting his answers to their candidate survey directly on his webiste. Bluey comments: "Little by little, the old guard at places like the Sun is losing its influence while more voters turn to blogs and other outlets for the information they desire."

Regular Weekly Standard reader Chris Bowers at progressive MyDD isn't happy with PA Gov. Ed Rendell's (D) recent pro-Sen. Rick Santorum (R) statements and advises Rendell to pay attention to CT: "Why is Governor Rendell saying positive things about Rick Santorum in the Weekly Standard? For that matter, why is Governor Rendell giving an interview with the Weekly Standard at all? Now Rick Santorum is using those comments in his ads. Of course, I am talking about a Democrat who went on Fox News in order to support Samuel Alito during the confirmation hearings and repeat the talking points Republicans were using about Democrats during those hearings. I am also talking about someone who was openly a member of the Fainthearted Faction during the Social security fight. Whatever lesson Democrats in DC may or may not learn from the Connecticut Senate primary, I wonder sometime how long it will take that lesson to filter down from DC and back into Pennsylvania."

Mark Kilmer at RedState noticed Bowers lecture: "But Rendell is a traitor to their cause, and must pay the price. He has crossed the mighty lefty netroots, and you know what happened to the last candidate who did that. (Well, Lieberman might have to win reelection as an independent. Hillary ticked them off too, I think, but I think all that happened to her was that she continued raising funds apace. I don't know if Paul Hackett angered them so much as they abandoned him.)"

Patrick Casey at National Review Online is no fan of Sen. Lincoln Chafee's (R) latest choice in consultants: "Here's something interesting that I heard about over the weekend, but couldn't find in the Providence Journal (although apparently it was on a newscast on WJAR10 Saturday) the Chafee campaign has hired a Maine telemarketing firm owned by the wife of James Tobin, who was convicted in 12/05 of criminally violating federal campaign laws in New Hampshire. That means that Chafee has hired the wife of a convicted felon who is in the same business as her convicted felon husband as a paid consultant. Democrats are still trying to tie Tobin to the Bush administration via a civil lawsuit, saying that the White House directed Tobin's activities."

Byron York at national Review Online notesa gender reversal in the Quinnipiac 8/6 CT SEN cross tabs: "While the overall result of the poll shows Lamont ahead 51-45, among likely Democratic primary voters, there is a significant gender difference in the numbers. Among men, Lamont leads Lieberman 55-42. Among women, the two candidates are tied, 47-47. Intuitively, that doesn't seem to make sense. Is it more evidence of the unreliability of polling in this August primary?"

The official Ned Lamont Blog offers CT SEN theme ringed tones with titles including: "But I Agree With the Republicans 80% of the Time," "I'm Ned Lamont and I approve this message" (Bear Ad), Joe Lieberman on FEMA's Michael Brown, "FEMA, of course, has done an outstanding job," and Everyone's Favorite Lobbyist, Richard Goodstein.

Posted by Conn Carroll at August 8, 2006 12:23 PM