There’s going to be lots of Dems celebrating today, and with good reason. Overall the Democrats had a very good night last night. So I won’t bother going into that much myself.  (If you want a sense for the scope of the Democratic sweep, read this.) Instead, I’d like to say a few words about some of the results that I find personally disappointing.

In OH-02, Mean Jean Schmidt (of "decorated Marine veteran John Murtha is a coward" infamy) squeaked out a victory over Victoria Wulsin, 51%-49%. This is the same district that chose Schmidt over veteran Paul Hackett in 2005. The obvious question is, why does Cincinnati hate our troops?

In IL-06, Pete Roskam narrowly beat disabled veteran Tammy Duckworth, 51%-49%. I guess in that district saying that you "support our troops" counts for more than actually, you know, losing both legs in Iraq.

In MN-06, the certifiably insane Michele Bachmann took the win over Patty Wetterling, 50%-42%.

And the biggest disappointment of all: Holy Joe Lieberman beat Democrat Ned Lamont, 50%-40%.  According to exit polls, fully 71% of registered Republicans voted for Lieberman over the actual Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger. More shameful, 32% of registered Democrats did too — despite Lieberman’s flipping them the bird by refusing to bow out when he lost the Democratic primary.

The real shame of Lieberman, though, adheres not to the voters of Connecticut, but to the national Democratic leadership. They did practically nothing to support Lamont, despite the fact that he was the elected Democratic candidate.  Instead, they chose to support Lieberman, who’s become the Dennis Miller of the Senate, making a mini-career of sucking up to the GOP.  That gave those 32% of Democrats the impression that Lieberman was still a Democrat too. (I wonder if those 71% of Republicans would agree with that.)

If the DSCC had run ads in Connecticut saying "Despite what he wants you to think, Joe Lieberman isn’t the Democratic candidate.  Ned Lamont is.  Vote Lamont on November 7", don’t you think they could have shaved 10 percent off that Democratic support? I sure think so.

The fact that they chose to support an entrenched incumbent whose whole campaign was based on spite over losing a Democratic primary — rather than the candidate who the Democrats of Connecticut actually endorsed — is simply pathetic. Why do we bother voting in primaries if the party won’t help the candidates who win them? Why not just let the DSCC crown whomever they like as "Democrats"?

There’s a lot of celebrating for Democrats to do today. But there’s also some hard questions that we need to make sure aren’t forgotten in the process. Here’s hoping that no Democratic candidate ever again has to endure such shabby treatment from the Democratic Party as Ned Lamont did this year.



November 8, 2006
10:19 am

Dead on (of course) with the CT situation. What a farce.
Despite the overall good news last night, why do I keep hearing the last line of “The Candidate” over and over again in my head in the collective voices of Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer?


November 8, 2006
11:47 am

If I was Bush, I’d fire Rumsfeld, appoint Lieberman Sec. of Def., and have the republican Gov of Conneticut appoint a republican to the Senate. bwah ha ha!
Also, Joe had no money from the dems, and Lamont is millionare. So don’t cry for him so much. Lamontdecided to introduce himself on his primary victory with Sharpton standing beside him. He continued to campaign as a left wing radical in a moderat new england state. Lieberman beat him, and why would the should the party be spending party money in Conneticutt, to defeat a loyal democrat, when that would take money away from Tester, Webb and others who needed it to beat actual republicans?

Jason Lefkowitz

November 8, 2006
12:07 pm

“why would the should the party be spending party money in Conneticutt, to defeat a loyal democrat…”
A “loyal democrat” would have bowed out after losing the party primary and endorsed the party’s elected nominee. Not set up shop as an independent candidate and split the Dem vote just to feed his own ego.
And the party could have supported Lamont very well without spending a dime. Just parade Chuck Schumer, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and all the rest of the Traveling Road-Show All-Stars through CT singing Lamont’s praises, rather than Lieberman’s. The fact that all these luminaries were out there stumping FOR Lieberman AGAINST the Democratic candidate is beyond pathetic.


November 8, 2006
3:31 pm

the only guy I saw stumping for Lieberman after the primary was the Mayor of New York, and he’s a republican, technically.

Jason Lefkowitz

November 8, 2006
4:54 pm

In fairness, I shouldn’t have lumped Obama in there. I did some digging and found he did stump with Lamont in the general.
As to the others, it’s not so much what they did do as what they didn’t do. They wouldn’t raise money for Lamont. They wouldn’t stump for Lamont. They wouldn’t criticize Lieberman or call on him to pull out of the race. Here’s some links: