Jane who? Lamont cuts and runs from nutroots

posted at 2:21 pm on August 3, 2006 by Allahpundit

They’ll get used to this.

Their chief asset — crazy rage — is also their chief liability. It’s great for fundraising and recruiting volunteers, not so great for winning elections. I think what you’ll see in the next few years, especially if Lamont wins the primary (which looks likely) is mainstream leftists like Mark Warner wooing them early on and then inching away as the campaign heats up. You don’t want to loiter outside a bomb factory; sooner or later, one’s bound to go off.

Which is why they’ll always be outsiders.

kos2.jpg

Now here’s a question I need someone to answer for me. The “LieberYouth” is a term used by Lieberman’s supporters to describe themselves, right? I know the nutroots, bad as it is, wouldn’t compare a Jewish politician’s volunteers to Nazis unless those volunteers had adopted the term first.

I can’t find any reference to it online other than on nutroots blogs, though.

I’m going to e-mail the Lieberman campaign and ask them. Stay tuned.

In the meantime, Hamsher wants to know why the right-wing blogosphere is backing a guy who’s ostensibly on the other side:

First David Horowitz, then the College Republicans and now the rightwing blogosphere are all championing a particular Democrat in a Democratic primary. Perhaps they have come to admire what seem to be ever increasing Rovian tactics, such as that flyer accusing Lamont of being a racist (which inspired the satirical graphic in the first place.) Whatever it is, it certainly should give Connecticut voters pause as they consider whether they are really voting for a Democrat in the Democratic primary on August 8th.

Point one: that’s quite a subdued bit of writing for someone who helped popularize the terms “Rape Gurney Joe” and “sandpaper snatch.” Funny how uncombative the fightin’ nutroots becomes when they know the camera’s on them. Point two: does she truly not understand how disgusting we find her “movement,” both in its policies and its tactics? They don’t hate Lieberman because he’s a Republican; they hate him because he’s not a socialist. Forced to choose between a Democrat and a socialist, the right will vote for the Democrat every time, especially if the other guy’s being backed full force by people treating the race as a bellwether. So yeah, it should give voters pause why the right is backing Lieberman. I hope we put him over the top in the general election, too. A leftist’s going to the Senate from Connecticut either way; why not make it the one who hasn’t been bought and sold by the adversary culture?

I leave you with the Times’s latest hagiography of Lamont, replete with a photo of none other than Joe Lieberman gazing adoringly at him as he waves to the crowd, and the following tidbit from WaPo. Nice of Arianna to take time out from castigating Hollywood for its silence on Mel Gibson’s racism to absolve sweet Jane, don’t you think?

Arianna Huffington, the founder of HuffingtonPost.com, said that no one from the Web site has asked for the photo to be removed. “We did not ask her, nor would we have asked her,” she said. “It was a satirical point she made in the picture, and there was nothing in the text that was racist, and there is nothing about Jane that is racist.”

Update: Here’s the Mentos ad which certainly doesn’t feature any bloggers, which Ned Lamont wouldn’t know about even if it did.

Update: Goldstein is back from hiatus.

Update: Blogging at Hugh Hewitt’s site, my pal Dean Barnett offers a new word to the lexicon:

[L]et’s say the bomb that went off yesterday blows up the Lamont campaign and denies the Nedster the victory that was so clearly within his reach. Then the language will have a new word – “hamshered”. “Hamshered” will be defined as a politician being wounded because of his close ties to a kooky blogger.

Used in a sentence: “There’s a chance that Mark Warner will be hamshered because of his relationship with a prominent blogger whose hobbies include astrology and manipulating the price of worthless stocks.”

I’d be shocked if there was any fallout from this. But we can hope.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Nothing but a satirical point? So, they’re now cruel and heartless SOBs then?

Kokonut on August 3, 2006 at 2:28 PM

“Rovian tactics” gotta love that.

NTWR on August 3, 2006 at 2:34 PM

Were I Leiberman’s campaign, I’d have the blackface photo on TV and in the papers from now ’til Monday.

Bob's Kid on August 3, 2006 at 2:47 PM

Ned’s not even waiting for the primary results before he throws the nutroots under the bus. Brilliant tactical move there.

I’m sure the nutroots will be pissed, but they’ll put them through this same type of punishment again and again in coming years. Pretty soon they’ll have more grievances than muslims do.

thirteen28 on August 3, 2006 at 3:17 PM

Allah,
Can’t believe I didn’t read much of you back in the day; I love your HotAir commentary. If, one day, you’re right about something, I’ll be sure to mention it on my blog to get some traffic.

frankj on August 3, 2006 at 3:24 PM

Ha. Thanks a lot, Frank. I appreciate it.

Allahpundit on August 3, 2006 at 3:38 PM

Did you know Mel Gibson volunteered for the Ned Lamont campaign for ‘Community Service’?

(Pic at bottom)

DANEgerus on August 3, 2006 at 3:55 PM

I don’t know about anyone else, but the only reason I have to root for Joe is the simple fact that their against him. Personally, I couldn’t care less which one wins, as both are going to be trainwrecks, but I would just love to see the Kos Krowd chalk up yet another loss.

Iowa Voice on August 3, 2006 at 4:46 PM

In the meantime, Hamsher wants to know why the right-wing blogosphere is backing a guy who’s ostensibly on the other side:

After she’s spent so long arguing the opposite?

Pablo on August 3, 2006 at 4:51 PM

It’s amazing how Lieberman went from being the Dems’ 2000 Vice Presidential candidate to quickly being tossed out like yesterday’s trash. They argue that it’s not because of his position on the Iraq war, instead claiming that it’s because he is too friendly with the right. That’s funny. Isn’t it the Dems that always claim that the political climate is too polarized right now?? But yet, they are the ones that are being run by the far, far left nowadays. Lieberman is one of the few Dems that will cross party lines on issues that matter. He also doesn’t allow the fringes of the party to bully him.

Rick on August 3, 2006 at 5:27 PM

Who says Lie-berman isn’t a socialist? Either way a R will not win the election. Let them tear themselves apart. The more the extremist Dem leadership has to move further left than they already are to placate the haters, the better for America.

ScottG on August 3, 2006 at 6:41 PM

Lieberman earned his red star merit badge in the Joe Duffy campaign. He is a socialist but practical enough to know, unlike the other children in the Democratic party, that it is not worth the risk to subvert the war on terror to win Congress. He is aware Israel could lose big and the USA could take hits worse than the second Muslim attack on the World Trade Center. Lamont, Dean, Murtha and the rest are confident that no matter how much they undermine our security, the adults will, as they always have, bail the country out.

Essex on August 4, 2006 at 4:02 AM