Ned Lamont the ROCK STAR Democrat of 2006!

WHY is Ned Lamont the ROCK STAR of Democratic candidates (including incumbents cruising to easy re-election) in late campaign season 2006???

ans. - Apparently, Lamont is the ONLY (candidate for) Senate Democrat who has figured out that MILLIONS and MILLIONS and MILLIONS of us Democratic voters WANT OUR REPRESENTATIVES to CONTEST, CONFRONT, and OPPOSE the presidency of George W. Bush, and his administration that is headed by serial incompetents (and smear mongers) Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Donald Rumsfeld.


<< "He's captured folks' attention because he STANDS FOR SOMETHING and what he stands for is a principled, progressive Democratic Party that will STAND UP AND FIGHT against the failures of the Bush Administration and that's something that people have been calling for a while," said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org. >>

[i.e., that "stand up and fight.... something" that Lamont is doing is something the 'REGULAR Democrats ALREADY in the US Senate have been FAILING TO DO for SIX LONG YEARS.]



Dems laud Conn. Senate candidate as star
By SUSAN HAIGH, Associated Press Writer
Sat Aug 26, 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060827/ap_on_el_se/connecticut_senate_lamont;_ylt=AsyicoKNC0MSqlY00eEVfhRh24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-


HARTFORD, Conn. - Ned Lamont headlined a recent fundraiser for the liberal Democracy for America. Days later, the Democratic Senate candidate was rubbing elbows with celebrities at a charity event sponsored by the liberal MoveOn.org, and he's been a guest on Air America, the liberal talk radio network.

Has the Greenwich businessman who defeated 18-year-veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman in this month's Democratic primary hit rock-star status among progressive Democrats?

"He's pretty darn close," said Tom Hughes, executive director of Democracy for America, which helped raise more than $100,000 for Lamont during the primary.

Lamont was the top attraction at a recent fundraising event for the group, founded in 2004 by Jim Dean, brother of Howard Dean — chairman of the Democratic National Committee, former Vermont governor and former presidential candidate.

"It was the talk of the political town when he was here," Hughes said. "He is known to progressives across the country right now as somebody who just toppled a really behind-the-times entrenched incumbent. That's a huge deal."

Lamont, who announced his candidacy as recently as March, faces a three-way race in November against Republican Alan Schlesinger and Lieberman, now running as an independent.

Lamont's campaign manager, Tom Swan, is quick to point out that even though his candidate has headlined a few out-of-state events, he is totally focused on Connecticut.

And Lamont himself downplays all the attention.

"No, I don't think so," he said, when asked if he's become celebrity in progressive Democratic circles. He said he's "talking to everybody I can. I'm going to small businesses and business associations, I'm talking to elderly, MoveOn.org."

Swan acknowledges that Lamont, a cable company executive whose only political experience has been at the local level, is in demand. He said the campaign has had to decline numerous requests for Lamont to appear for groups or other candidates. The campaign has also received numerous requests from politicians wanting to appear with Lamont.

"He's captured folks' attention because he stands for something and what he stands for is a principled, progressive Democratic Party that will stand up and fight against the failures of the Bush Administration and that's something that people have been calling for a while," said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org.

Ken Dautrich, public policy professor at the University of Connecticut, and a former pollster, said he doesn't believe Lamont's status among liberal Democrats will be enough to defeat Lieberman in November.

"It's the traditional voter, the independent, which makes up a huge part of the electorate," he said. "They're not necessarily looking for a rock star, and that's what he is."

Still, Dautrich credits Lamont with energizing a segment of voters that haven't been enthusiastic about politics for years, especially young people. He said he sees students on the University of Connecticut campus wearing Lamont campaign buttons and talking about working for the campaign.

"He's kind of outside of the system. He's a newcomer to politics. Lieberman is as traditional as it gets in terms of a politician," Dautrich said. "(Lamont) is particularly appealing I think to young people who are more anti-war. He was able to unseat Lieberman and he has become almost a pop culture figure in politics."

BRAVO! a CALL TO ARMS for Democrats in 2006!

And Brent Budowski NAILS the problem that we here at C-dems.blgspt.com have been documenting for all these months:

<< It [the Republican Bush-Rove-Cheney smear campaign against Democrats] has worked before, largely because Democrats were weak and naive and did not know what they were up against or how to respond. >>

Actually, I fear Mr. Budowski is being a tad generous. We here at C-dems.blgspt.com have been shouting all along that ALL the Democratic senators had to do was BAND TOGETHER, oppose (CONFRONT) the lies, incompetence, and distortions (much less smears) of the Bush Republicans, and DEMAND that the press/media objectively cover the issue.

For example, one issue is an easy win/can't loose issue for Dems. THat would be the Murray Amendment, sponsored by Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.), to fund $2.7 Billion for VETERAN'S REHABILITATION and VA services, services that have fallen far short of their pre-2001 funding because of the 2 wars that the Bush administration has embroiled us in.

JUST BY BRINGING MEDIA ATTENTION to that issue, the Democrats would portray George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Don Rusmfeld as LYING when they claim that they "SUPPORT THE TROOPS."

For, clearly, the above mentioned Bush-Cheney-Rove-Rumsfeld Republicans have NO concern for the welfare of the troops, they consider tax-cuts for billionaires much more important than funding Veterans services.

But we digress.

Mr. Budowski offers a TERRIFIC OPPORTUNITY for Ned Lamont to undo half-a-dozen years of Democratic COWERING in the face of the Bush-Rove SMEAR machine... and opportunity that would, in Budowski's words, send KARL LIEBERMAN scurrying for the rat hole where he belongs.





High Noon: Lamont Should Challenge Karl/Lieberman to 30 National Security Debates
Brent Budowski
08.16.2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-budowsky/high-noon-lamont-should-_b_27418.html



READ MORE: Iraq, Rep. John Murtha, Dick Cheney, 2006, 2008, Karl Rove, George W. Bush
I have been there and done that. One of the early targets of the Swift Boat attack-style campaigns was Lloyd Bentsen when Phil Gramm ran against him with the "soft on communism" attack. I remember Bentsen late one night, pounding his fist on his desk, saying: "I am going to destroy him". In that election, he did.

Connecticut presents an extraordinary moment


for Ned Lamont to change the course of our national politics and set Democrats on a new trajectory to national leadership.
Make no mistake: it has begun. Within weeks the Karl Rove-induced campaign of Senator Karl Lieberman will accuse Ned of being related to Don Corleone, sympathetic to Joseph Stalin (that one has already begun), and leaflets will appear suggesting that Ned is a flag burning transvestite.

Make no mistake: as a relative newcomer, Ned Lamont is vulnerable to a saturation slander campaign. It is no coincidence that within hours Dick Cheney and Karl Lieberman made the preposterous attack on Lamont based on the recent terror bust. But understand, folks, these guys are good at this. When Lieberman demeans himself aligning with Cheney with such a transparently bogus attack, he does it for a reason: it has worked before, largely because Democrats were weak and naive and did not know what they were up against or how to respond.

If Ned Lamont handles this well, by Veterans Day 2006, Senator-elect Lamont will be on the short list for Vice-President in 2008. Here is how: it is High Noon, and the good voters of Connecticut can fire the political shot heard around the world and run the Swift Boat style of smears right out of town.

Ned Lamont should challenge Karl Lieberman to thirty national security debates, face to face, man to man, head to head, issue by issue and truth by truth before veterans groups all over Connecticut.

He should announce this challenge surrounded by John Kerry, Max Cleland, John Murtha and any other American heroes who were similarly attacked and by a fleet of patriotic Democratic heroes from Bob Kerrey and Wes Clark to John Glenn and Stan Turner.

He should announce that on his first day in the Senate he will introduce new omnibus legislation that will authorize billions of dollars to do what President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Senator Lieberman have failed to do: provide dramatic upgrades in veterans health care, immediately meet any short term needs of our troops for armor, bandages, helmets and anything else with an emergency appropriations for whatever is needed to get the job done: and provide dramatic new aid for homeless veteran heroes and education and job training grants for troops returning from combat.

He will announce that he would pay for it, through a one time excess profits tax on mega-wealthy oil companies, contracting firms and others who have made bloated profits from this war.

He should challenge the good Senator to return every dollar of campaign contributions from donors and lobbyists who have been been the greatest financial beneficiaries of the war, because especially those who shout the loudest about World War III, should not make the greatest private profits from the sacrifice of our troops, then turn around and recycle those profits to politicians who seek to profit politically as they do financially.

Thirty debates, man to man, issue by issue, truth by truth.

Ned Lamont should say: from my first day in the Senate, I will fight to protect our country, to defend our homeland, to support our troops and to honor our vets. I will fight for this, from the very first day. I will for fight for this, for my entire term. I will fight for this, harder, truer and with more passion and commitment than you have ever shown on matters.

Look him in the eye, and say: Where were you, Senator, as the guy who wanted this war in Iraq for a decade, when our troops did not get enough armor, when wounded were asked to sometimes pay for their wounds, when 70% our casualties were preventable? Oh, sure, some of these matters you whispered in ears, or made a nice little insert in the Congressional Record, others you just ignored. But where was the fight, where was the passion, where was the commitment?

Where were you, Senator, when from 1995 there was concern about liquid bombs on airplanes, and yet nobody in Washington did a thing? Now it is your big political issue to promote fear, but where were you in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 when you could have made the difference, but had more important things to do?

Why didn't you fight like hell, Senator, to get our troops the armor, once this war had begun, since you wanted this war so badly, well before George Bush was even elected, you should have been first in line, and fighting the hardest, to get our troops everything they need. Where were you?

Was the problem, Senator, that you did not care enough to fight, or that you simply had no influence?

Where were you, in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 to protect our ports from our enemies, and to protect our subways and transit from the terrorists? These vulnerabilities continue to this day, to this hour. Where were you then? Where are you now? Why haven't you been fighting for this, day after day, week after week, since September 11?

Senator, its not to enough to enter high toned words into the Congressional Record, or grand comments in your newsletters, or make these issues when you return to Connecticut seeking our votes. This is about making this a fight, for our troops, for our vets, to close gaps in our domestic security, every day of every year. Its not enough to talk about it, dance around it, or use it for your reelection. Where was the passion, the commitment, the diligence, the follow through?

Why don't you tell your supporters, Senator, to stop insulting voters by calling my ancestors communist, and start fighting every day, the way I will fight every day from the moment I walk on the Senate Floor, for the things that matter?

And Senator, with all due respect, you have a very different view of bipartisanship, than I. When the only president in American history who uses war to attack the patriotism of war heroes from the Loyal Opposition, you should have been strong, and clear, and honest in attacking this divisive and demeaning style of politics, Where were you?

In my bipartisanship, Senator, we respect each other, we honor each others patriotism, we debate our differences with dignity, and we never, never, never slander war heroes because they are political opponents in either party and we always, always, always stand for honor and truth and respect in our democracy. That is my bipartisanship, Senator, and it would be a better world if you would stand with me, for that, rather than parroting those same demeaning lines of attack.

In my bipartisanship Senator, when our troops need armor we work together to get it. In my bipartisan when our airports need screeners and our ports need protection and our subways and rails need defense we work together to do it. In my bipartisanship Senator, we know that what the terrorists fear the most is a united country that stands together, and what the terrorists like the most is a divided country with leaders who cannot even agree to protect our ports and our rails and provide adequate support for our troops and vets.

30 debates. Head to head. High Noon. Man to Man. Face to Face. In a great debate that lays out the issues, That stands up for the troops. That protects the Homeland. That supports the vets. That respects the people and takes the issue to them honestly and directly and lets the accountabiblity of our democracy work the way it should.

If Senator Lieberman accepts, the people will decide, and the truth will out, and Ned Lamont will win that debate, hands down, again.

If Senator Lieberman refuses to accept the challenge, the voters of Connecticut will know who is brave, and who is not, and why.

NATIONAL SECURITY is the KEY ISSUE for Democrats in 2006!

Will the Democrats ALLOW themselves to be framed, flogged, defined, and smeared as "WEAK ON DEFENSE" by the Republican CHICKENHAWK crew - the Dick Cheneys, Karl Roves, Rush Limbaughs, George W. Bushs, and Newt Gingriches (etc) who NEVER EVEN TRIED to defend America when THEY had the chance?

Amazing video of Keith Olberman of Countdown:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az7yl-UnsQQ
Episode examines THIRTEEN CASES where the Bush administration/Homeland Security dept. declared a STATE OF EMERGENCY just days or hours after bad news or less favorable ratings came out for the Bush administration. In all cases, the ELEVATED SECURITY alerts BOOSTED the Bush poll ratings, and submerged the negative news.




Democrats See Security as Key Issue for Election 2006
By CARL HULSE
Published: August 15, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/washington/15dems.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1155614400&en=b5c5857dd0b0c75e&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON, Aug. 14 — After being outmaneuvered in the politics of national security in the last two elections, Democrats say they are determined not to cede the issue this year and are working to cast President Bush as having diminished the nation’s safety.

“They are not Swift boating us on security,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader in the House.

Seeking to counter White House efforts to turn the reported terrorist plot in Britain to Republican advantage, Democrats are using the arrests of the suspects to try to show Americans how the war in Iraq has fueled Islamic radicalism and distracted Mr. Bush and the Republican Congress from shoring up security at home. They say they intend to drive that message home as the nation observes the coming anniversaries of Hurricane Katrina and the Sept. 11 attacks.

But they are not waiting. A video Monday on the Web site of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee showed footage of Osama bin Laden, referred to an increase in terror attacks, highlighted illegal immigration and pointed out the nuclear aspirations of Iran and North Korea.

“Feel safer?” it concludes. “Vote for change.”

In another example, Representative Harold E. Ford Jr., a Democrat running for the Senate in Tennessee, issued a statement Monday noting that the administration shut down a C.I.A. unit dedicated to pursuing Mr. bin Laden. The administration has said that the C.I.A. shut down the unit as part of a restructuring of its counterterrorism division and that the move did not diminish its focus on Al Qaeda and its leaders.

“The president told us that the British attacks are a stark reminder that the nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom,’’ Mr. Ford said, “yet his administration has dismantled the very infrastructure that is responsible for catching those terrorists.”

Those statements and others challenging Republicans head-on over antiterror initiatives are a sharp contrast to Democrats’ actions in the two previous elections, when they stumbled in the face of Republican efforts to paint them as weak. Democrats say polls show that Republicans and Mr. Bush have lost stature on the subject on terrorism as Americans have become disillusioned with the war in Iraq. They also believe that more voters are able to separate the war from efforts to protect the nation against terror attacks.

“During the 2002 and 2004 elections, Republicans tried to sow fear in the American public by claiming that they were the only ones who could keep America safe,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said in an e-mail message to supporters. “This from the same crowd that has driven Iraq to the brink of disaster, left Osama Bin Laden on the loose to attack again and continues to ignore our security needs at home.”

Republicans said they believed that the Democratic efforts would fizzle and that voters would ultimately choose to trust Republicans on the issue of security. And Mr. Bush, in remarks at the State Department on Monday, disputed the notion that his policies had contributed to a more dangerous world.

“Some say that America caused the current instability in the Middle East by pursuing a forward strategy of freedom, yet history shows otherwise,” Mr. Bush said, ticking off terror attacks that occurred in the United States, Africa and elsewhere long before he took office.

Democrats say that such comments may have had power in the past, but that Republicans are no longer getting the benefit of the doubt. They were heartened this past weekend when leaders of the Sept. 11 commission said the war in Iraq was draining resources that could be put to domestic defense.

Other Democrats say the administration’s initial support of a business deal that would have allowed a Dubai company to assume control of parts of some seaport terminals was a turning point in the public’s view of Mr. Bush’s credibility on national security. As a result, they say they are advising candidates to respond quickly and with force to Republican attacks.

While a new poll by Newsweek showed a rise in Mr. Bush’s public approval rating on security issues in the aftermath of the arrests in Britain, the latest nationwide CBS News Poll, conducted Aug. 11 to 13, found that the recent threat had had little effect on the public’s view of the president and the two political parties.

The war in Iraq remains the most important issue facing the country, the poll shows, but terrorism has re-emerged as a major issue for many Americans, cited by 17 percent, up from 7 percent last month. The latest CBS poll showed no change in Mr. Bush’s job approval rating, which is at 36 percent, the same as in a New York Times/CBS News poll last month. His approval rating on handling terrorism, long a central element of his political strength, also remained unchanged at 51 percent.

While Republicans are still seen as doing a better job than Democrats in handling terrorism, the difference in the latest CBS poll is now about 8 points, about the same as a month ago, compared to the 25-point advantage Republicans held on the question four years ago. The telephone poll was conducted with 974 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said such findings reinforced his view that Mr. Bush had failed to blend the Iraq war and antiterrorism in the public’s mind. Mr. Emanuel said that Mr. Bush’s public standing was cemented in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and that Republican efforts to improve the president’s image by emphasizing terror could not overcome the damage done by the bungled response to the storm.

“Katrina equals competency,” he said.

[Katrina equal Bush INCOMPETENCY!" is what he SHOULD have said!]

Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting for this article.