I just read Ned Lamont’s recent stump speech on the WSJ Opinion Journal. I found it interesting that Ned used his experiences as an entrepreneur to help him form his campaign. Because his campaign was an apparent success (we’re still waiting for November), Ned thinks these very ideas will help him as a Senator.

I’m a little confused as to why Ned thinks his experience as an entrepreneur will help him appeal to voters across his state and that it will help him be a good U.S. Senator.

“In 1984,” says Neddie, “with a loan from People’s Bank [not affiliated with China], I started Campus TeleVideo from scratch. Our offer was unique: Rather than provide a one-size-fits-all menu of channels, we let the customers design their cable system based on the character of the community being served.”

I think Ned’s choice of business is great. He identified a group of individuals that desired a service, and then he provided that service. This is very similar to his victory in the primaries. A certain group of rather unique individuals petitions Ned to provide a service. He does so with great success. But, when the market is expanded (in this case, to include Independents and Republicans) the number of people willing to pay for the service Ned offers, will decrease considerably. What’s ironic is that the very service that Ned provided as an entrepreneur that brought him success in business (to provide options beyond the “one-size-fits-all menu”) is exactly the thinking that he ignores when he portends that he’ll be Conn. next US Senator.

Ned also makes another crucial error in his overly ambitious proclamation that he’ll win in November. He cites his past experiences of “be[ing] in every part of the business” as reasons for his business succes and why he is suited to be a Senator. Ned fails to tell us how “pulling cable, hiring workers, picking a good health-care plan, closing deals, listening to customers and fixing problems” exactly equates with being a successful U.S. Senator.

But, to give him the benefit of the doubt, I can understand how to some extent hiring workers, finding a health-care plan, and listening to customers might help. However, how do these experiences compare with Lieberman’s, a three-term incumbent? Don’t you think Joe’s got a leg-up?

Further, don’t you think it’s a bit disingenuous for Ned to knock the importance of experience (we can’t put our trust “in a career politician”) right before he touts his own?

Come on Ned, who you tryin’ to fool?