New York Times feature on Ned Lamont

(Note: this piece does not appear online and is in the Connecticut section of today's Times. Overall, a well-done and comprehensive background piece and sure to push Lamont's recognition factor in the state.)

 

Lieberman Faces a Challenge from the Left

   By C.J. Hughes, New York Times, Sunday February 19, 2006

   From the outside, Ned Lamont's office building looks like many others in downtown Greenwich: non-descript and very corporate.

   Inside, there is a different story.  Surrounding his desk is a lavish tribute to the baby boomer counterculture, with a gallery of photos of cultural heroes like Muhammad Ali, John Lennon, the Rolling Stones and Elvis Presley.

   In many ways, the appearance-versus-reality paradox is an apt metaphor for Mr. Lamont, the founder and president of Lamont Digital Systems, a cable TV company, who has formed an exploratory committee as he considers challenging Senator Joseph I. Lieberman.

   Mr. Lamont, 52, is the product of some of the nation's most elite schools and a resident of one of the state's most buttoned-down towns, a self-made business executive with a pedigree to make Miles Standish blush.

   Yet he is also a mince-no-words, unreconstructed left-of-center liberal who said he strongly believed that Senator Lieberman had drifted far to the right and had become too cozy with the White House, and that when it come to the people who put the senator in office, fallen way of out touch.

The story then mentions Lamont's "eureka" moment,deciding to enter the race, when Senator Lieberman argued for staying the course in Iraq (11/29/2005):

America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists

You can guess the rest or click that link. Basically it was the last straw for Lamont.

There is also a telling comment from Leslie O'Brien (lobrien@ctdems.org), executive director of the Connecticut Democratic Party:
   

"There are many concerns about this being a distraction of resources and energy away from three competitive House races this year. It's also a distraction from the gubernatorial race."

Gee, I wonder where the sympathies lie there?

Then some complimentary quotes from Lowell Weicker, who Lieberman defeated in 1988, and who had considered running this year before Lamont made his name known.

The family history is an impressive one, and lest anyone think Lamont is just another big business guy trying to make a name for himself think again.

   Making a difference was emphasized from an early age in the Lamont household, which despite its patrician leanings - his great-grandfather Thomas Lamont was chairman of J..P. Morgan, the Wall Street investment bank, and a benefactor of Harvard's Lamont Library - had its fair share of those who subverted the status quo.

   A grandfather, for example, spent his career working on a sailboat in Puerto Rico, eventually marrying a Catholic missionary stationed there.  And great-uncle Corliss Lamont's aren't Socialist beliefs prompted the ire of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy.

Quite a good piece in my opinion.

The full version can be found at Democracy for Connecticut (http://www.democracyforct.net).

Tags: Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont (all tags)

Comments

8 Comments

I saw it too

I thought it was a good article for Lamont, to be recognized by the Times in a big article like this.  They portrayed him well, and I hope it helps him in the coming months leading to the August primary.

by Max Friedman 2006-02-19 02:57PM | 0 recs
You just know

..the Lieberman apologists won't like it. Not a tiny bit.

by Scarce 2006-02-19 05:22PM | 0 recs
well,

The LIEberman appologists are a sorry lot anyway.

by Adam T 2006-02-19 10:57PM | 0 recs
Re: New York Times feature on Ned Lamont
The Times did a story on Lamont. That means he might lose by 30 points instead of 40 points.
by liebermanlives 2006-02-20 04:55AM | 0 recs
See my note above

They just can't help themselves. Denial is a river in Egypt, right?

by Scarce 2006-02-20 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: New York Times feature on Ned Lamont

I'm not thrilled with Lieberman's stance on the war, but I don't think supporting Lamont will accomplish anything.  Last week's Q poll has Lieberman beating Lamont in a primary, 68% to 13%.  And, Friday's Rassmussen poll shows that even if Lieberman loses the primary, he still wins the general by fairly wide margins running as an Independent - against either Lamont and a Republican or Weicker and a Republican.  While I don't like all of Lieberman's stances, IMHO, we're better off as a state and a nation to have a Democrat in the Senate than an Independent.  The ultimate enemy here is Bush and the Republicans in Washington.  So, why do we want to waste resources and energy beating Joe in a primary (if he can be beaten, which right now doesn't look promising) when he will most likely cruise to victory in the general?  Shouldn't we be focusing our resources where they can do the best good - like trying to win back the House by electing Farrell, Courtney and Murphy - rather than frittering them away on a Senate primary?  It seems that these days we Dems always end up shooting ourselves in the foot at election time - hence, three terms for Rowland, a second term for Bush - perhaps it's time we stop "eating our young" and keep our eyes on the prize, which should be wresting control of the Congress from the Republicans.

by TruBluDem 2006-02-20 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: New York Times feature on Ned Lamont

The short answer is Joe Lieberman is neither young nor ours.

That may sound flippant but is rather accurate. Joe's current voting record will not change so it really will make no difference whether he sits as a Democrat [in name only] or as an Independent. Lieberman would probably say the same thing.

Frankly I don't see a downside to a challenge by Lamont. The scarce resources excuse is weak at best. If anything Lamont's candidacy will energize what is now a moribund constituency, which in my opinion is never a good thing in a democracy. One would expect the financing issue to become moot anyway: either Lamont realizes his campaign financing goals or he doesn't. That will not affect any other candidate's efforts at their own fundraising.

What I do see emerging is that if Lamont were to defeat Lieberman in the august primary this would have a beneficial and cathartic affect on the entire Democratic party, in Connecticut as well as nationally.

Simply put, the upside is huge and warrants the nominal risk.

However, I do not see the reactionary forces within the Democratic party and those whose interests they serve going quietly into the night. I expect they will do everything in their power not to serve democratic interests.

That is the real problem of the Democratic party.

by Scarce 2006-02-20 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: New York Times feature on Ned Lamont

Lamont's name id is so low at this point that those poll numbers don't mean a whole lot yet. Let's see how Lamont does after he's had a chance to introduce himself to Democrats in CT over the next few months.

by Quinton 2006-02-20 08:17PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------