Ned Lamont, the Political Entrepreneur by Matt Stoller of Mydd

[Larkspur]

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/2/17/165938/836

...In all honesty, I did not expect to support Ned Lamont. When I wrote The Risks for the Blogosphere of Taking on Lieberman, I outlined the set of risks that we carry in going against someone who is well-entrenched and popular in their state. And I was expecting to go to Connecticut and find a guy eager to beat Joe Lieberman, but without a sense of what he wanted to do in the Senate and why he was in politics. All too often, that's what neophytes in the political process bring to the table, enthusiasm and energy without discipline. I know how bad Lieberman is. It's not just the war vote, it's how he introduced the Iraq war resolution and undercut all the other Democratic Senators who wanted to authorize force with more restrictions. It's not just the consistent Bush-kissing, it's how he grandstands against Alito and the Bankruptcy Bill and then votes for cloture, the only real vote that matters. It is, in short, how Lieberman has no principle, no vision, and no ability to lead this country in the right direction. He's with us when it doesn't matter, and he's against us when it does. Nevertheless, politics is about reality, longevity, and consistency, not just idealism, and I was scared that we'd throw a sacrificial lamb at a DLC giant.

After my time in Connecticut, I am 100% behind Ned Lamont. He is a serious, disciplined man who has the right temperament and a deep understanding of what it means to succeed and achieve in this world (he is also good-looking and photogenic). The downsides of his candidacy are clear. He has held only one elected office as a local politician, and he is starting his run with only seven months until the primary in August. He is down in the polls by 47-36, and his name ID is low. This is going to be a tough race. Lieberman is a ruthless campaigner with oodles of money and the support of DC insiders; indeed, the entire edifice of the 'sensible Democrat' is built on Lieberman's mixture of pandering-as-principle, and these people will fight viciously to maintain their veneer of respectability. Going into Connecticut means going into the belly of the beast.

Given all these factors, why am I behind Ned Lamont? Or rather, why did I shift from a lukewarm overly anxious state to what sounds like, but isn't, that of a Kool-Aid Kid? Well I have a test for politicians. I ask them who their political idols are, and why. And what Ned Lamont told me is the single most impressive answer I have ever gotten. His favorite politicians are Bill Clinton and Bill Bradley, and the reason is because he believes we need a more entrepreneurial style of politics. That is a remarkable answer. It is remarkable because it is absolutely forward-looking and systematic. What we face as a country is systemic corruption, not a few bad apples. And the way to shift that system is through a new crop of entrepreneurial leaders who seek to occupy and create new political space, not to swell on the legacy of the New Dealers. Ned Lamont is one of these leaders.

Why else do I find him impressive? Well, because he's accomplished. He built a company. That may not sound hard, but it is. Building a telecommunications company takes guts, bravado, perseverance, and savvy. It means calculated risk-taking, not blind recklessness or excessive caution. Yet even as he was building his business, he worked on policy with the Brookings Institute, fiscal policy and health care. Lamont is extremely progressive, for very solid pragmatic and moral reasons. Without a functional and universal health care system, businesses and workers are getting crushed. Being in Iraq is a diversion of resources away from critical domestic priorities, and away from catching Bin Laden. These are not poll-tested answers from a guy seeking to beat Lieberman; these are the instinctive positions of someone who has thought and done his civic duty for years as a business and community leader. That matters because it means he brings a level of seriousness to any endeavor he undertakes. He keeps his word, and he gets things done and built. And his business background and reputation in the state makes it very difficult to pigeonhole him as some unrealistic liberal.

The other reason I'm behind Ned Lamont is because he's done his politics the right way, and this means he can win. His campaign staff is superb. Tom Swan, his campaign manager, knows politics, and while I can't go into the specifics of the strategy, it is realistic and makes a great deal of sense given the landscape of Connecticut and the relatively small universe of primary voters. For instance, there were 125,000 in the uncontested Presidential primary in 2004 and with a volunteer list above 1000, that means that almost 2% of the total necessary primary vote is volunteering for Lamont. I would imagine my voter universe numbers are somewhat off, but not by orders of magnitude. Lamont is going to need money and has set an informal fundraising goal of $500,000 by the end of the month; McCain-Feingold means that he can't use more than $500,000 of his own money without triggering provisions that allow Lieberman to double his take from his maxed out donors. But Lamont will also spend this money efficiently; there are endless ways to waste money in a primary campaign, and Lamont, because he comes from private industry and is using people who have been around the block to run his campaign. Oh, and while we're talking about numbers, Moveon.org has 50,000 members in Connecticut. That's low-hanging fruit for Lamont.

SNIP