Posted on 09/24/2006 7:18:45 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont is having trouble moving from the small stage of a primary campaign with its appeal to partisans to the main stage of the general election, which requires the attention of the state's 2.1 million voters. Since the Aug. 8 primary, Lamont has done little more than repeat his opposition to the war in Iraq and carp about Sen. Joseph Lieberman's independent bid for a fourth term.
Part of the problem in getting to know more about Lamont is that he has no record in a public office that required him to take stands on issues. He is mostly free to make it up as he goes along. Lamont did get nabbed when he recently took a swing at Lieberman for criticizing then President Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. Oops, turns out he sent a rambling letter to Lieberman in 1998 praising Lieberman and calling Clinton's behavior "outrageous."
The public has to look at the fragments it can find of Lamont's private life to figure out what sort of public figure he would be. The man who seemed a fresh force in the spring is starting to look like a contrivance as the fall begins. Here are some examples:
Lamont, like all Democratic candidates, has been in hot pursuit of union endorsements. Lieberman snagged most of them in the primary campaign. Most, but by no means all, have stuck with Lieberman.
In his cable business, however, Lamont has not been so eager for union attention. At one conclave, Lamont gave the cold shoulder to Bill Henderson, president of Communications Workers of CT Local 1298, when Henderson had the temerity to suggest to the cable executive that he ought to let the union into Lamont Digital.
When Henderson, a Lieberman supporter, complained in public about Lamont's anti-union attitude in his own business, registered lobbyist and Lamont campaign manager Tom Swan called it a "red herring" because Lamont's employees are well compensated. But Henderson points out that unions aren't only about wages. They also secure better working conditions and the dignity of their members. Lamont and, suddenly, Swan aren't interested in the union credo.
Candidate Lamont is keen to call for more corporate responsibility from the likes of Wal-Mart and Enron. He made the obligatory appearance at a protest of Wal-Mart this summer.
Lamont, however, won't say much about corporate shenanigans closer to home. His wife, Ann Lamont, is a formidable venture capitalist. And while piling up their millions, there have been a few casualties. The Lamonts won't disclose details, but public documents reveal that Ann Lamont was successfully sued for securities fraud in 1999 for her role in a disastrous public offering of stock by a Florida medical management company that went bust in a big way. Ann Lamont and other defendants entered into a multimillion-dollar settlement with fleeced shareholders.
Some of the records are sealed, and the Lamont campaign won't reveal how much of the settlement Ann Lamont had to pay in 2001 to get out of the mess. Substitute the name of, say, Lynne Cheney for Ann Lamont and imagine the outrage on the left for such a doomed scheme.
Lamont's association with Al Sharpton during the primary did not include briefing the candidate on his new best friend's history. On CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" last month, Lamont claimed never to have heard about the 1995 events at Freddy's Fashion Mart, where Sharpton organized pickets and stirred the crowd against the "white interloper" who owned the Harlem store. A crazed assailant and picketer burned down the store. Seven employees died. Not to know about the tragedy looked like willful ignorance on Lamont's part. Word must have never reached the Round Hill Club.
The Greenwich scion does want to do something about poverty. Judging by the limited personal financial records his campaign released in July, Lamont would leave it to the government. In his 2005 tax return, Lamont reported income of $2.9 million. He gave just one-sixth of 1 percent of that, or $5,385, to charity.
That income tax return also showed that although Lamont expresses worry about American jobs going overseas, he's not so upset that he won't profit from foreign investments. Nearly a third of that $2.9 million income came from investments in foreign funds.
Ned Lamont is a curious puzzle. The more you look at the pieces, the harder it is to get them to fit together.
Lamont will lose and the Kos Kommies and DU Dummies will once again shriek that it was a stolen election.
Place your bets Freepers if Lamount lose how long before Howard Dean go It's Bush fault reset LOL!
I give two hours after election day is over LOL!
Bull hockey! It's no "puzzle".
Ned Lamont is your average everyday liberal Democrat bigwig -- he knows what's good for you, but it doesn't apply to him.
You are almost right. Lamont is an opportunist who stands for two things: hatred of the President of the United States of America and hatred of the United States of America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.