Mr. Lamont Goes to Washington

The candidate lays out his platform, says Joe Lieberman is coming out of the Republican ?closet.?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


How quickly Ned Lamont’s fortunes have changed. Once the consummate dark horse candidate, the Connecticut businessman and cable television entrepreneur began his run for senate last January “as less than an asterisk” on the ballot, as he put it recently. Beyond serving as a Greenwich selectman and a failed bid for state Senate in 1990, Lamont’s political bona fides are sparse at best, particularly when paired with those of his opponent, three-term incumbent and former vice presidential nominee Joseph Lieberman. In a strange twist of fate, it’s Lieberman who’s now on the ropes. Forced off the democratic ballot after Lamont’s slim win in Connecticut’s senate primary in August, Lieberman is running as an independent, canvassing his district door-to-door to secure support, and, all told, campaigning like he’s the political newcomer.  

Though his name recognition was once close to nil, Lamont, backed by strong netroots support, has raised his profile to the point where even Vice President Dick Cheney has singled him out for attack, holding a conference call with reporters after the Connecticut primary to portray Lamont’s anti-war platform as a victory for Al Qaeda and their ilk. At a campaign stop the following day, Lieberman made similar comments, certainly not dispelling the notion that he’s all too cozy with the Republican leadership.  

After spending the last few months barnstorming Connecticut, Lamont took his campaign to Washington on Wednesday, meeting with reporters, union members, and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill. Speaking to reporters at an event hosted by The American Prospect, he laid out his platform on issues from health care to foreign policy, returning often to a topic that has been the bread and butter of his candidacy: knocking Lieberman’s sometimes questionable allegiance to his party and unwavering support for the Iraq war. “Everyday Joe Lieberman is coming out of his closet,” he said on Wednesday. “He’s more and more politically allied with the Republicans; he’s more and more allied with Karl Rove.” He added, “Increasingly he’s acting like the de facto Republican candidate.” As evidence of Lieberman’s Republican links, Lamont’s campaign manager, Tom Swan, pointed to a report this week in the conservative news magazine, Insight, which asserts that the White House has funneled money to Lieberman’s campaign through Republican donors at the direction of Rove and Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman. Swan also mentioned an ad campaign backing Lieberman launched by Veterans for Freedom, a 527 committee with Republican ties that he likened to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that ran attack ads against Senator John Kerry during his presidential run. 

Much of the coverage of the Lamont-Lieberman race has centered on their positions on Iraq, with Lieberman advocating the president’s “stay the course” line and Lamont calling for a phased withdrawal of troops, while maintaining a U.S. presence in the country to aid with reconstruction and humanitarian assistance. But Lamont has recently taken pains to stress that he’s not simply a one-issue candidate, and in Washington he spoke at length about his views on health care, a system he said is “fundamentally broken.”  

“What’s going on is the incredibly high cost of health insurance is beginning to put us at a terrible competitive disadvantage around the country, beginning to bankrupt big business and small business alike,” he said. “Businesses are walking away from their historical obligation to provide health insurance for their employees. They’re pushing more and more of the load onto workers.” An advocate of universal health care, Lamont has put forth a plan that, among other things, would provide subsidies to small businesses to help cover rising health care costs and he supports initiatives to require employers to provide coverage for their employees. On Tuesday, he unveiled his education platform, which includes a plan to fund early childhood education on a sliding scale basis, an attempt to level the playing field for children of all socioeconomic backgrounds.  

Instead of letting his political inexperience be seen as a weakness, Lamont has sought to play it to his advantage. “I’m coming to this race as an outsider, and I’m coming to this race as a guy who wants to shake things up,” he said. He has often spoken out against the millions of dollars in earmarks that are slipped into pending legislation and the influence of lobbyists on the political process. On Wednesday Lamont repeated his campaign pledge to swear off campaign contributions from political action committees and lobbyists, adding that if elected he would come to Washington “unencumbered.” His declaration, however, is slightly misleading. According to campaign finance records, Lamont, whose campaign funding has largely come out of his own pocket, has received more than $250,000 from MoveOn.org’s PAC. (Liz Dupont-Diehl, Lamont’s communications director, said his campaign draws a distinction between corporate-funded PACs and those like MoveOn’s, which receive small contributions from many individual donors.)  Lieberman, for his part, has received more than $1.4 million from a variety of political action committees that represent defense contractors and oil companies, among other corporate interests.  

Though Lamont is still riding high from his primary win and seems confident he will “turn out the vote” in November, he still faces a tough race, particularly if Lieberman receives strong Republican backing and even a healthy minority of the Democratic vote. Recent polls have Lamont trailing Lieberman by anywhere from 2 to 10 percentage points, and he acknowledged that his campaign is “running behind” with moderate and independent voters. In the coming weeks, he said he plans to reach out to this segment aggressively. As Swan put it, “We’re going to play to win with unaffiliated voters.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate